ONKAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Criminal revision, Onkar Chand petitioner assails his conviction under Section 161(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short, the Act). The learned Magistrate sentenced him to 9 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, the learned counsel Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, by an elaborate and lucid judgment not only upheld his conviction but affirmed his sentence.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on June 19, 1973, Dr. Gurdarshan Singh Moonga, Government Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. M.K. Bhalla and two peons visited the business premises of the petitioner and purchased 450 grams of Haldi powder on payment of Rs. 5.25 P. vide receipt, Exhibit P.S. After completion of the necessary formalities, a sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found the same to be adulterated. Vide his report, the Public Analyst opined that metanil yellow, which is an unpermitted acid calter dye, was found in the contents of the sample.

(3.) THE first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in this case, the Food Inspector made no attempt to join any independent witness from the locality and, therefore, the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act were not complied with and, therefore, the petitioner had been prejudiced. Section 10(7) of the Act provides that when the Food Inspector takes action under clause (a) of sub-section (2); sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present. This would mean that when a sample is taken by a Food Inspector atleast one or more persons have to be called by him as a witness. This provision has been interpreted to mean that one or two independent witnesses should be called by the Food Inspector when he takes the sample. In this case, the Food Inspector purchased the sample of Haldi for analysis in the presence of Dr. M.K. Bhalla. There was, however, no effort on the part of the Food Inspector to particularly join any witness from the locality in which the sample was taken. But it cannot at all be said that Dr. Bhalla was an unreliable witness. He was a man of status and was not in any manner interested in making out a false case against the petitioner. The Food Inspector Dr. Gurdarshan Singh Moonga is no doubt a colleague of Dr. Bhalla, but it cannot at all be said that the latter was under any kind of influence of the Food Inspector. It cannot, therefore, be said that Section 10(7) of the Act has been breached. In this view I am fortified by a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Sahai, (Crl. Appeal No. 654 of 1977, decided on August 27, 1979).