- (1.) K. L. Sharma, J. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the material brought on record.
(2.) THIS is a revision directed against the order dated 23-11-94 passed by VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1993 was dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23-11-1993 passed by IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad was upheld. The revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to minimum six months' R. I. with a fine of Rs. one thousand and in default of payment of fine, further two months R. I. has been imposed. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there has not been any compliance of Section 10 (7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and as such the trial has become vitiated and the order of conviction is not sustainable in law. I find that the compliance of Section 10 (7) of the afore said Act has been fully made inasmuch as while taking sample, the Food Inspector has called an independent person whose signatures have also been taken on the memo of sample. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted further that this witness of the memo of sample has not been examined by the prosecution and as such the order of the conviction based on the sole testi mony of Inspector is illegal. I do not find substance in this contention because the order of conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness, if the court is of the opinion that the witness is truthful and his credit worthiness is in assailable. Corroboration of the sole testimony is not legally required but the real prudence and caution, called for the corroboration only when the sole testimony is itself inconsistent or does not inspire confidence but in the present case I find that there is no such infirmity. Both the trial court as well as appellate court have recorded concurrent findings and have placed reliance op the sole testimony of Food Inspector. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to say anything against the Food Inspector or to disclose any reason to suggest false implication of the accused by the Food Inspector. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of conviction and sentence in this case minimum sentence as prescribed by law, has been imposed and this court or rather no court can reduce the punishment lower than the minimum prescribed by law.
(3.) THE revision is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .;