JANG BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, Jang Bahadur petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide his order dated April 6, 1981 sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar upheld his conviction, but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to six months while maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to delineate the facts in any great detail. The petitioner was found in possession of 5 quintals of Haldi powder for sale, wherefrom a sample was duly taken by Dr. Satish Kumar, Government Food Inspector, which on subsequent analysis was found to contain 0.80 per cent of grit and 2.64 per cent of ash insoluble in dilute HCL against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.5 per cent.

(3.) THE first point urged before me is that the conviction was bad in as much as it rested on the evidence of the Food Inspector Dr. Satish Kumar and his associate Dr. S.C. Saini. I find no merit in this submission. There is no rule of law that the conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a Food Inspector and other official witnesses. It is only out of a sense of caution that the Courts insist that the testimony of the Food Inspector should be corroborated by some independent witnesses. This is a necessary caution which has to be borne in mind because the Food Inspector may in a sense be regarded as an interested witness but this caution is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. If it were otherwise it would be possible for any guilty person to escape punishment by resorting to the device of bribing the independent witnesses. Both the doctors had no ill-will or animus against the petitioner so as to involve him in this case. Even otherwise Dr. S.C. Saini has categorically stated that an effort was made to join some independent persons from the locality but none came forward. In the premises, the Food Inspector had no alternative hut to take the sample in the presence of Dr. S.C. Saini. The conviction of the petitioner cannot, therefore, be assailed an infirm on the ground that it rested merely on the evidence of the Food Inspector and the other official witness.