- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision arises out of the judgment and order, dated 18-6-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1982. By that judgment and order the learned Judge up held the conviction of the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 passed by Sri M. C. Gupta, Special Magistrate, 1st Class, Fatehpur on 4-5-1982 in case No. 206 of 1981.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that the applicant was a sweetmeat holder. On 16-12-1980 the Food Inspector wanted to purchase Dhaniya stored along with other sweets for being used in preparation of vegetable. THE Inspector wanted to purchase 600 grams from him for the purpose of analysis but the accused applicant did not permit him to take the sample thereafter prevented him from taking sample and committed offence under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After obtaining sanction a complaint was lodged. The only point that has been taken by the learned counsel for the revisionist was that mere refusal to allow the Food Inspector to take sample does not amount to 'preventing' as per provisions of the aforesaid Act. He has submitted that some sort of overt act must be made in order to constitute an offence. He has referred a decision of Division Bench reported in 1971 Cr. LJ. 705 in support of his contention. The Food Inspector in his evi dence has stated that he expressed his desire to purchase 600 grams of Dhaniya after making payment but the revisionist did not comply it. There after the Food Inspector wanted to weigh that amount of Dhaniya but he was prevented and did not allow him to do so. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there was no overt act on the part of the revi sionist though it is in evidence that 5-6 servants of the revisionist were working there. There was no altercation and nothing happened to the Food Inspector who only alleged that he was not allowed to take the sample. After going through the judgment and evidence I do not find any thing to hold that there was any overt act on the part of the revisionist or his servants both. The circumstances were such that the Food Inspector did not get a chance of taking sample for which it can be said that he was 'prevented' from taking sample. Learned counsel for the revisionist has then submitted that there was no compliance of Section 10 (7) of the aforesaid Act which is necessary in a case where allegation for preventing the Food Inspector was made. He has also stated that independent corroboration is much required in these types of cases unless the shopkeepers in general are exposed to similar type of proceeding even when no such incident happened. He has then referred a decision reported in 1969 Food Adulteration Journal 276-Joy v. Food Ins pector, wherein it was held that where no independent witness is produced for proving prevention or obstruction by the accused in taking sample though such witnesses were available the conviction cannot be sustain able. It has also been decided that it is not an enough that the complainant or his assistants give evidence to satisfy that in fact such incident happened. It is required to be proved not only by documentary evidence. The conduct of the accused which is under challenge must be proved by adducing independent witnesses. In the instant case the Food Inspector has been examined as PW 1 one Ranjit Singh, Safai Nayak of Nagar Palika and Ram Kishun an Upper Division Clerk of P. H. C. as PW 3. None has been tendered to corroborate the evidence of the Food Inspector who could be figured as independent witnesses. Soon both the counts the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed and convictions and sentences passed by the learned Special Magistrate, 1st Class, Fatehpur and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur are hereby set aside. The accused appli cant is set at: liberty. He is discharged from the bail bonds. All interim orders are hereby vacated. Revision allowed. .;