MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhari, dated 16.9.1998 whereby he dismissed the appeal of Madan Lal against his conviction and sentence recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari, under Sections 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in Food Case No. 308 of 1989/91.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 20.4.1989 at 4.15 p.m., Sh. A.R. Nehra, Govt. Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. Naveen Sabharwal, intercepted Madan Lal in the area of Workshop Road Yamuna Nagar. At that time, he was found carrying 10 kgs. of Haldi powder in a gunny bag. It was meant for sale to the public. After disclosing to the accused that he was Food Inspector authorised to seize samples of food stuff from their vendors meant for sale to the public and to have the same analysed from public analyst, Sh. A.R. Nehra served notice upon the accused. After serving notice upon the accused, he asked him to supply him 450 gms. of Haldi powder on receipt of the necessary payment. Accused supplied him 450 gms. of Haldi powder on receipt of Rs. 5.40 from him against receipt. Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts. He put each of those sample-parts into three dry, clean and empty bottles. After complying with the necessary procedure prescribed under the Act, he sent one of the sealed sample packets to Public Analyst Haryana. He deposited the other two sealed sample packets in the office of Local Health Authority, Jagadhari. Public Analyst analysed the sample and found that the sample was containing rice starch. It also contained added prohibited orange oil soluble coaltar dye whereas it should have been free from artificial colouring matter. On receipt of the report of the public analyst, copy whereof was sent to the accused through registered post along with forwarding letter by the local health authority, Food Inspector instituted complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jagadhari. After examining Sh. A.R. Nehra, Govt. Food Inspector (P.W.1), Sh. A.N. Sharma, Food Inspector (P.W.2), accused was charged by the learned magistrate for offence punishable under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. After the charge was framed, the prosecution examined Dr. R.K. Jain, SMO; Sh. A.N. Sharma, Govt. Food Inspector; Sh. Naveen Sabharwal (P.W.4), etc. Sh. A.R. Nehra, Food Inspector P.W.1 was recalled for cross- examination.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been unjustifiably convicted and sentenced by the two courts below. It was submitted that the petitioner has been convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of the Food Inspector and Dr. Naveen Sabharwal. Dr. Naveen Sabharwal should not have been viewed as an independent witness. He was part of the raiding team and, as such, he was equally interested in seeing that the case detected by them succeeds and the accused is convicted and sentenced. It was further submitted that there has been violation of the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act. Section 10(7) of the Act lays down that where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), (2), (4) or sub-section (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. It has been submitted that the words "one or more persons" appearing in Section 10(7) of the Act mean one or more independent persons. In support of the submission, he drew my attention to Ram Lubhaya v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, 1974 SCC (Crl.) 527. Suffice it to say, Food Inspector was required to have the seizure of the sample of Haldi Powder witnessed by an independent witness or witnesses if he was/were available. In this case, the seizure of sample by the Govt. Food Inspector has been corroborated by Dr. Navin Sabharwal PW. Why should Food Inspector corroborated by Dr. Naveen Sabharwal be not believed ? If Food Inspector corroborated by Dr. Naveen Sabharwal is not believed, that would tantamount to holding that no conviction is possible in a Food Adulteration case till corroboration by a non-official witness. We have to look to the quality of evidence and not the quantity thereof. Food Inspector corroborated by Dr. Naveen Sabharwal can well be believed if their testimony inspires confidence in the mind of the court as to its truth. Testimony of Food Inspector corroborated by Dr. Naveen Sabharwal cannot be ignored.