Murlidhar, J. - (1.) Rvisonnist Kesar Singh has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I for three months and a fine of Rs. 1000/'- in default further R. I. for one month,
(2.) The prosecution case was that on 12-1-1976, at about 1.00 p.m., he was found exposing for sale in his Parchun shop in Naugarh, District Varanasi adulterated Haldi. It was alleged that the sample of Haldi obtained by the food inspector was found coloured with the prohibited coal tar dye lead chromate. Both the Courts below have found the accused to be guilty.
(3.) In revision the learned Counsel for the revisionist pressed two points. It was alleged that the independent witness Vishwanath P. W. 4 had not supported the prosecution and therefore, there had been a breach of Section 10(7) of the Act. This contention is without any weight. Section 10(7) only obliges the food inspector to call one or more independent witnesses while taking a sample. This was done. That this independent witness Vishwanath did not support the prosecution at the trial does not detract from the fact that Section 10(7) was fully complied with. It is then a matter of appraisal of evidence whether the testimony of the food inspector could be believed in the face of the defection of the independent witness. In this case the Courts below have found on cogent evidence that the Haldi was exposed for sale in the revisionist's shop and the sample was taken by the food inspector and have disbelieved total denial of the revisionist who claimed that he had no shop, was merely an agriculturist and that the whole case was a total concoction. The Courts came to this conclusion on the evidence of food inspector Shambhoo Nath Srivastava P.W. 1 and Ramayan Singh P. W. 2 supported by documents prepared at the time or sample taking. This is not only a legitimate but proper finding of fact in, which no infirmity justifying interference in revision could be shown.;