O.P.Pradhan - (1.) THIS revision by the convict is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.12.1983, rendered by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1983.
(2.) THE relevant facts lie in a short compass. On 30.7.1980 at about 1 p.m., the Food Inspector, Rajendra Prasad Srivastava purchased 1, 1/2 kg. 'Bundi Ka Laddu' from the shop of the revisionist for analysis by the public Analyst. After observing the requisite formalities, a sample of the same was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported on 27.8.1980 that it was coloured with 'Metanil Yellow' which was prohibited. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution from the Local Health Authority, a complaint was instituted against the revisionist in the competent court where he was charged under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). THE learned Magistrate after trial found the revisionist guilty and sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. and pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo three months' more R.I. THEre was an appeal against this order of conviction and sentence but it also met with failure. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as also the learned Government Advocate and perused the lower court record. The learned counsel for the revisionist urged before this Court that there was non-compliance of Section 7 (10) of the Act inasmuch as no independent person has been examined during trial even though Mohammad Sabbir was cited as a witness in support of the prosecution case. So far as this contention goes, it may be pointed out that Section 10 (7) mandates the Food Inspector to call one or more persons to be present at the time when he takes action. This provision, however, does rot require that such a person should also be examined in the Court. In the instant case the Food Inspector appears to have called Mohammad Sabbir to witness the action taken by him and his name has also been cited in the complaint as a witness for prosecution. However, his non- examination at the trial does not vitiate the proceedings or conviction. The evidence of Food Inspector, if believed, can be itself relied upon for proving that the sample was taken as required by law. (See Babulal Hargovind Das v. State of Gujarat, 1971 (1) SCC 767). The evidence of Food Inspector Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, P.W. 1 has been accepted as reliable by both the courts below and 1 have not been persuaded in this revision to take a different view of his evidence. He has withstood the test of cross-examination fairly well and no dent could be caused to the prosecution case during; his cross-examination. Accordingly the evidence of Food Inspector is found reliable to hold that the sample, in question was taken in accordance with law. The contention urged with regard to noncompliance of Section 10 (7) is not tenable.
(3.) IT was faintly contended that there was non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. However, this aspect of the case has already been carefully analysed by the lower appellate court in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the revisionist had precious little to dislodge the finding reached by the lower appellate court on this score. Moreover, the revisionist did not exercise his right of getting the sample re-analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and therefore too, it cannot be legitimately contended that any prejudice has been caused to him on this score. Accordingly the second contention, urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist, has also little substance. It is clear from a perusal of the report of the Public Analyst dated 27.8.1980 (Ext. Ka-4) that the sample was found to be coloured with 'Metanil Yellow'. Under Rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 Metanil Yellow' was a prohibited food- colour/dye. Mere presence of Metanil Yellow' as food-colour/dye in the sample would be enough to pronounce the sample as adulterated within the meaning of Section 2 (ia)(j) of the Act. The report of the Public Analyst need not contain the mode or test applied but shall contain the result of analysis which would be the data from which it could be inferred whether the article of food was or was not adulterated. In the instant case, the Public Analyst's report has not been superseded by the Central Food Laboratory, since no attempt was made by the revisionist to get it re-analysed in accordance with Section 13 (2) of the Act. Accordingly the conviction of the revisionist is well-founded. Minimum sentence permissible under law has been imposed on the revisionist and, therefore, no interference is called for in this revision.;