SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner Sat Pal was convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ropar (Roopnagar) vide his order dated 22nd May, 1981 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar (Roopnagar). He did not find any merit in the appeal and consequently dismissed the same. Still feeling not satisfied the petitioner has come to this Court in Revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case as gathered from the evidence is that on 18th July, 1978, P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla, who in those days was invested with the powers of Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inspected the business premises of Sat Pal, petitioner. He was running a Halwai shop at Bus Stand, Kurali. Dr. N.K. Singla (P.W.1) was accompanied by P.W. 3 Dr. Rajiv Sethi. The petitioner was found in possession of 5 Kgs. of cow's milk contained in a 'Patila' for sale. After disclosing his identity and following the procedure laid down under the Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Dr. N.K. Singla, P.W. 1, purchased 660 ml. of milk from the petitioner against payment vide receipt Exh. P.B. Dr. N.K. Singla, P.W. 1, complied with other formalities about dividing the sample in three parts, adding preservative to each part corking, wrapping labelling and sealing each part. Various memos, prepared by Dr. N.K. Singla, P.W. 1, at the spot were attested by the petitioner and P.W. 3 Dr. Rajiv Sethi. P.W. 1 Dr. N.K. Singla, sent one part of the sample to the public Analyst and deposited the other two parts with P.W. 2 Dr. H.R. Diwan, Civil Surgeon, who in those days had been appointed as Local Health Authority, Ropar. The Public Analyst vide his report Exh. P.F. opined that the milk fat contents in the sample were 2.2% while milk solids not fats 8.2% and thus milk fat was deficient by 45% and milk-solids not fats 3.5% of the prescribed minimum standards. Therefore, the Food Inspector filed the complaint Exh. P.G.

(3.) THE only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the present case the Food Inspector did not comply with the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act. That provisions lay down that where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) of the section, he shall call one more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of the said Section have been violated in as much as no independent witness was called when the sample was taken. According to him, Dr. Rajiv Sethi, P.W. 3, who had accompanied Dr. N.K. Singla, Food Inspector, cannot said to be an independent witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a few cases to show that the Food Inspector is bound to join independent witnesses. Some of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the joining of some subordinate person of his own department by the Government Food Inspector. In those cases, it was held those persons could not be said to be independent witnesses. I need not discuss those cases as in the present case Dr. Rajiv Sethi cannot be said to be subordinate to Dr. N.K. Singla.