- (1.) K. N. Sinha, J. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5-2-1986 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1984 confirming the conviction under Section 7/16 of P. F. A. Act and sentence of six months R. I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and recorded by order dated 26-7- 1984 passed by Judicial Magistrate (E. O.) Agra.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that revisionist Anwar Husain had a shop wherein he was selling mustard oil. Food Inspector Sri J. C. Gupta suspected the adulteration and took sample by paying 4. 50 paise. THE sample of 4. 50 gram of mustard oil was divided in three part. One was sent to Public Analyst, Lucknow in which adulteration was found, hence after obtaining sanction filed the complaint. THE prosecution examined as P. W-1 Food Inspector Sri J. C. Gupta and Sri Indra Prakash, Senitary Superwiser as P. W-2. No independent witness was examined. After recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the judgment of conviction was recorded by the Magistrate. I have perused the said judgment. The total judgment in which the reasoning is said to have been recorded runs into about half page which also does not contain any proper reason. The Magistrate noted down the facts that the independent witnesses had not been examined. The case, however, shows absolutely nothing about the public analysts report etc. This judgment has been upheld in appeal. The judgment recorded by the Magistrate is not sound nor based on any reasoning. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. It was argued that no independent witness was taken and there is no compliance of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act lays down that while taking sample, some independent witness must be there.
(3.) THE idea under lying in this provision is that the Food Inspector may not act arbitrarily. THE Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 made a provision to call one or more person to be present, when such sample is taken and take their signature. THE Legislature felt its necessity and made amendment on 1-3- 1965 for calling of witness and taking of signature. This provision has not been at all followed. THE Magistrate bye-passed it by mentioning that there are no enmity between the Food Inspector and the revisionist. It was next submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the report of public analyst shows a marginal adulteration and that is due to unclear utensil in which the mustard oil was first collected before filling it in the phials.;