Decided on September 19,1988



Lingaraj Rath, J. - (1.) CONVICTION of the Petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) sentencing him to rigorous imprisonments for one year for selling adulterated til oil having been confirmed in appeal with modification of the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment has made the Petitioner prefer this revision for reversal of the same.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution indicating the Petitioner is that on 20 -1 -1981 a raid was conducted by p.w. 1 the Food Inspector of the district of Keonjhar at 3.15 p. m. at the shop of the Petitioner in village Nandara and suspecting the til oil to be adulterated he took sample of it after observing the necessary formalities and on obtaining the report of the Public Analyst launched the prosecution. In defence the Petitioner contended that the til oil in question was not meant for human consumption but was for the purpose of massage only. Mr. Mund the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has assailed the conviction raising three contentions, viz: (i) the provision of Section 10 (7) of the Act had not been complied with inasmuch as no independent witness has been called by p.w. 1 to witness the raid and taking of the sample; (ii) P. w. 1 was not the Food Inspector appointed under Section 9 (1) of the Act and (iii) there is no evidence that the 011 in question is utilised for human consumption in the area in question.
(3.) SO far as the first question is concerned, the categorical evidence of p.w. 1 was the some of the outsiders who were present at the spot and were observing the occurrence, refused to be cited as witnesses and went away .without giving their identify. P. w. 2 who was the peon accompanying p.w. 1 also corroborated him on the question stating that the outsiders present at the time of occurrence when asked refused to be witnesses and did not disclose their identity. No cross -examination has been directed at p.w. 1 in that respect. In view of the evidence, it is amply clear that precautions had been taken to observe the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act and p.w. 1 had not failed in caning independent witnesses. Since the persons present refused to be cited as witnesses, following the principles laid down in Ram Labhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 789, it must be held that the onus upon the Food Inspector had been discharged. This submission of Mr. Mund must accordingly fail.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.