S.Zaheer Hasan - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of Sri B, B. Srivastava, Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh.
(2.) ON 17-5-77 at 10 a. m. Chief Food Inspector, Pratapgarh, V. K. Verma found applicant Tara Chand selling Also Oil in Patti Bazar. He got suspicious and purchased 375 grams of the said oil on payment of Rs. 3.19 as its price. Necessary procedure was adopted. After analysis it was found that the sample contained 39% Tisi Oil and 61% mustard oil and so it was adulterated. PW 1 Chief Food Inspector V. K Verma and PW 2 Rajmani, Safai Jamadar, were examined as eye-witnesses. The accused denied that any sample was taken from his shop or that he has signed various memos. He contended that the Sanitary Inspector wanted regular gratificatiora from him and on his refusal there was exchange of hot words which ultimately ended in his false implication. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution version and sentenced the accused to one year's R. 1. and a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to six months further R I. under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In appeal the sentence was reduced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default the accused was to undergo further R. I. for one month. Aggrieved by this order the accused has come up in revision. It was contended that the sample contained 39 per cent Tisi Oil and 61 per cent mustard oil and the accused sold the same as Tisi Oil. So it would have been absurd to mix a costlier oil. It may be that the accused was selling mustard oil containing 39 per cent Tisi all and when the Food Inspector came there he asserted that he was selling Tisi oil, However, we need not indulge in speculations. It would suffice to say that under rule 44 (e) no person shall sell a mixture to two or more edible oils as edible oil. It was next contended that no independent witnesses was taken and PW 2 belongs to the department of the Food Inspector. There is evidence to the effect that independent witnesses present there refused to sign. The Food Inspector has no means of enforcing presence of witnesses There is no penalty for failure to respond to the request of the Food Inspector in this connection. Under the prevailing circumstances the Parliament could not have Intended that the presence of independent persons is mandatory. Non-observation of the provision of section 10 (7) will not affect the legality of action of Food Inspector but only weight of his testimony. Conviction can be based on bis sole testimony in proper cases. The weight to be given to his testimony vary from case to case. If bis statement is reliable and can be safely accepted it is immaterial that no Independent witness is called. To say this is not to say that the Food Inspector need not observe the provision of Section 10 (7) of the Act. It is in his own interest to take independent witnesses else his solitary testimony is liable to be rejected. If he calls and independent witnesses refuse the same should be noted down. If there is no such noting the evidence led would require careful scrutiny. The sample contained 61 per cent of mustard oil. There was no sense in obtaining such type of samples from some other place and in fictitiously asserting that the same sample was taken from the shop of the accused. Apparently the Food Inspector had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. I have gone through the statement of both the eye-witnesses which does not suffer from any material infirmity and I find no good ground to reject the same. They were believed by the courts below and the finding of the courts below on this score are not perverse, illegal etc. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses inspire confidence and they were rightly believed by the courts below.
(3.) IT was next argued that the accused did not sign the memos Ex. Ka-1, Ka-2 and Ka-3. These three memos bear his signatures. Evidence was led that they were in the hand-writing of the accused. If the accused was challenging the same he could have made request to the Court to send the same to the expert for comparison. So it has been clearly established that these papers bear the signatures of the accused and he appears to be a literate parson. The Food Inspector has stated that he sent all the relevant papers to the Chief Medical Officer who signed the sanction. In the sanction it is mentioned that the Chief Medical Officer applied mind to the relevant record of the case and has come to the conclusion that a prima face case was made out against the accused. So merely because the sanction is typed an inference cannot be made that the Chief Medical Officer blindly signed the sanction with out applving his mind. Reliance was placed on certain statements made by PW 1 V. K.Varma and PW 2 Rajmani as mentioned on page 6 of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. IT appears that the word "Nahi " (no) has been left out. Such mistake sometimes occur when a question is put in negative form. No other point was pressed before me. I find no illegality in the impugned order. The revision is dismissed. The revisionist is on bail. He will surrender to his bail forthwith to serve out the sentence passed against him. The C J. M. concerned will report compliance within six weeks. The fine, as imposed by the appellate court, if not paid, be deposited within 30 days of the date of the receipt of the notice from the Magistrate concerned failing which the default clause as imposed by the appellate court will follow. Revision dismissed.;