P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) This is an application in revision which arises out of the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in which the trial court has sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. Hence this revision.
(2.) Apart from other questions which were raised by the applicant's counsel in this case, one of the questions raised is that in fact no sample had been taken from the applicant, in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. On this question a doubt had arisen in the mind of the court, because on the record there were three forms VI, one of which has been marked Ext. Ka-1 and the other two are Papers Nos. 9 and 10, which have not been exhibited. Thus very serious suspicion arose in the mind of the Court, as to how and under what circumstances these papers have come on the record. I, therefore, summoned the Food Inspector to explain the position.
(3.) The Food Inspector has appeared before me today. I have recorded his statement and have put questions to him in order to understand the position. It is very clear that out of all these three forms Ext. Ka-1 has been prepared by him in toto, and Papers Nos. 9 and 10 have been prepared by him in part. According to him the signatures of Raj Kumar are to be found on all these three forms are not of the same person. This was my suspicion also. I fail to understand why three documents have been prepared concerning Form VI and why they all have been filed in this case. In fact it has also not been explained in what circumstances the documents have come on the record. The Food Inspector has stated that he was transferred and he had handed over all the papers to his successor, including Papers Nos. 9 and 10. In my opinion, a clear attempt has been made in the instant case to prepare false documents evidencing the taking of the sample from the shop of the applicant, which forms the basis of his conviction. As such, I cannot place any reliance at all on the fact that the sample in question was in fact taken from the possession of the applicant. In this view of the matter, the applicant cannot be convicted even if the sample was found to contain mixture of Tisi Oil.;