RAMESH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges his conviction under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food, Adulteration Act, 1954 as maintained by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on appeal, as also the minimum sentence known to law imposed on him being six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -

(2.) THE prosecution allegations were that Dr. A.S. Dhir (PW 1) Food Inspector, accompanied by a departmental Colleague Dr. V.K. Bhandari (PW2) raided the shop of the petitioner and found him to be in possession of 2 Kg. of 'Besan Ki Barfi' which was meant for sale. The usual samples were taken and one of which when sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh. attracted the report of adulteration inasmuch as there was present in it prohibited yellow coaltar dye. This led to the prosecution of the petitioner and his ultimate conviction and sentence.

(3.) MR H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a number of points but since he succeeds on the first one there is no need to deal with others. It is urged that there was total by -pass of compliance of Section 10(7) of the aforesaid Act. The said provision make it incumbent on the Food' Inspector exercising powers as authorised therein to call one or the provisions to be present at the time when such action is taken and get his or their signature. That such provision of section 10(7) is directory, has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kashmir Singh, 1980 Cr. C.J. 334, but at the same time it has been held that the Food Inspector cannot give a complete go by to those provisions. The beach ruled that he must make a sincere effort to comply with the provisions of section 10(7) and only when the Court is convinced of the sincerity of the effort made by the Food Inspector to join independent witnesses while taking the sample from the accused that the conviction can be based an the testimony of the Food Inspector alone. The Bench further went on to rule that when absolutely no effort was made by the Food Inspector to comply with the aforesaid provision, the conviction of the accused could not be based on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone.