YOGESHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The submission of the learned counsel in the first instance was that in the memo under which the sample was taken in the present case it was mentioned that the powered turmeric (Haldi) was taken and divided into three bottles and formalin was added but Dr. Jamini stated in his statement in Court that the powered turmeric was kept in packets and sent to the Public Analyst in three sealed packets. I have looked into the memo Ex. P/3 and the statement of Dr. Jamini and on a perusal of the same. I am satisfied that there is no inconsistency between the two. In case of powdered turmeric it was not necessary to add any preservative and the mistake which has been committed is that unnecessary portions of the memo Ex. P/3, which is in a printed form, was not scored out. Dr. Jamini, in his cross-examination, has admitted this mistake and stated that in the printed form Ex. P/3 he did not strike out the necessary portions making reference to bottles and the addition of formalin. I do not find any substance in this contention of the learned counsel.

(2.) The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act inasmuch as two independent witnesses were not called for by Dr. Jamini while taking the sample of the powdered turmeric from the applicant. What Sub-section (7) of section 10 requires is that the Food Inspector while taking the sample call for one or more persons to be present when the sample is taken and there is no doubt that such person or persons should be independent and disinterested witnesses. In the present case Dhool Singh witness was present at the time taking sample of powdered turmeric from the applicant and he has witnessed the memo Ex. P/3 Dhool Singh is not an employee subordinate to Dr. Jamini, who is Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer. Learned counsel argued that Dhool Singh was employed as a Driver with the Municipal Board Gangapur and, therefore, he should not be considered to be an independent witness. Dhool Singh is no doubt employed with the Municipal Board Gangapur City as a Driver bid on that ground alone there is no reason to hold that he was not an independent witness. I do not find that the prosecution in the present case is vitiated on account of any breach of the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Sec. 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) The last submission of the learned counsel was that a copy of the impression of the seal was not sent separately by Dr. Jamini to the Public Analyst and, therefore, there was a breach of the Provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There is no doubt that the Provisions of Rule 18 are mandatory and a copy of the impression of the seal should be sent to the Public Analyst separately, the purpose behind this provision being that sealed articles should be sent and should reach the public Analyst intact. In the cross-examination Dr. Jamini has stated that the had sent a copy of Ex. P/4 bearing the impression of the seal along with the sample. The report of the Public Analyst also shows that the seals were found intact by him and the seals were tallied by him with the specimen. Therefore, there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 18 in the present case.