SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Singh petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Judicial Magistrate, Jullundur, for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. His appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jullundur, failed.

(2.) THE prosecution story in nutshell is that on 18th of December, 1976 Dr. Gurdeep Singh, Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner at about 9 a.m. After disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector told the petitioner about his intention to purchase the milk meant for sale for analysis. After observing the formalities the Food Inspector purchased 660 Mls. of cow's milk from the petitioner. The sample of cow's milk so purchased by the Food Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst who vide his report, Exhibit PD found the same to be deficient in milk fat by 25% of the minimum prescribed standard. The Food Inspector filed the complaint in the Court for the prosecution of the petitioner. The defence put forward by the petitioner before the trial court was that the milk was not put into bottles labelled or sealed in his presence.

(3.) THE Food Inspector Dr. Gurdeep Singh, has appeared as his own witness in support of the claim and thus his interest in seeking the success his case in obvious. After going through his statement in the Court I am of the view that the same cannot be accepted for the reason that he was nowhere stated in the Court that he purchased the sample of milk from the petitioner's shop in the presence of some independent witnesses. Even in the statement recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, it was never put to the petitioner that the sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector in the presence of some independent witness, though in the complaint he did mention that he alongwith one Mandhir Singh went to the shop of the petitioner and purchased milk from him for analysis, but there is not even a word in his statement at the trial that he purchased the milk from the petitioner in the presence of Mandhir Singh. Section 10(7) of the said Act enjoins upon the Food Inspector to one or more persons to be present at the time of the purchase of sample. The evidence does not show that it was impossible for the Food Inspector to get independent persons from the same locality. The breach of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the said Act, therefore, a serious infirmity which goes to the root of the matter. That being so, the benefit of the same must go to the petitioner, because on the solitary statement of the Food Inspector, it is difficult to hold that a sample of milk taken by the Food Inspector was in fact taken from the petitioner. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that there has been no proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence produced in this case by the Courts, below. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court are not sustainable.