S.D.Singh, J. - (1.) This is an application in revision against the judgment of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra, upholding the conviction of the applicant u/S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, XXXVII of 1954, but while the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate was reduced to a sentence till the rising of the Court, the sentence of Rs. 1,000/- fine awarded to him by the Magistrate was confirmed.
(2.) Sri K. Singh, the Food Inspector under the Agra Municipal Corporation, visited the shop of the applicant at about 7 a.m. on 8-6-1965, and took a sample of milk which is alleged to have been exhibited at the shop for sale u/S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act aforesaid (to be referred to hereafter as the Act). The applicant was paid the price for the milk taken from him and the milk was divided into three parts, each part was filled in separate phials which were sealed on the spot and one of them was handed over to the applicant, another retained in the municipal office and the third sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The report of the Public Analyst was that the sample of milk which was sent to him was deficient in non-fatty solids to the extent of 17% Thereupon the applicant was prosecuted u/S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Act and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
(3.) Several questions were raised during the hearing of this revision. It was urged that only one witness, Dal Chand, was required to sign the papers relating to the taking of samples though under the law it was necessary for him to take signatures of at least two witnesses and even this one witness was an employee of the municipal corporation and he was consequently not independent. The provision for the Food Inspector calling at least two persons to be witnesses when samples are taken by him was, however, to be found in sub. S. (7) of S. 10 of the Act before it was amended by the Amendment Act, 49 of 1964. The sample of milk in this case was taken on 8-6-1965 and it was the amended sub-S. (7) of S. 10 which was therefore applicable to the facts of this case and all what the Food Inspector was therefore required to do was to "call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures." What actually happened, however was that the Food Inspector took the signatures of three persons Dal Chand, Lala Ram and Mathura Prasad. It was only Dal Chand, however, who was examined in this case. This does not introduce any illegality or irregularity in the trial. It may be that Dal Chand was an employee of the municipal corporation and one may suppose for the purpose of this case that he was not quite independent, but all the same the applicant does not challenge the fact that the sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector, the price there of paid and the milk placed in three phials, sealed in due course and one phial containing the sample of milk handed over to the applicant. He as a matter of fact made an endorsement Ex. Ka. 7 in his own writing on the document, Ex. Ka. I, in Hindi which reads:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Ext. Ka-2 is the receipt, which was given by him for receipt of the price of the milk. The endorsement made by the applicant on Ext. Ka 1 clearly shows that he ha pretty good knowledge of Hindi, and it cannot be said that the endorsement was made by him, or the receipt (Ext. Ka-2) was signed by him, without understanding the significance of what he was doing. All these facts were even admitted by the applicant in his statement before the Magistrate, though he has made a qualifying statement that the Food Inspector was going to have him arrested by the police and the suggestion was that it was probably under that threat that he made the endorsement and signed the receipt. This statement, however, is not supported by any evidence examined on behalf of the applicant in the case. The only other qualifying statement made by the applicant was (and that leads to h is case in defence) that the milk, from which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector, was not intended for sale, but meant for consumption in his house. But that is not what is brought out by the endorsement, which he made on Ext. Ka 1. There he clearly stated that he was selling this milk at 80 paise per litre. If this milk was not intended for sale, he was not obliged to sell any part of it to the Food Inspector and accept price thereof from him. The contention that the milk was meant for consumption at his house appears to be an after thought. Though Ram Lachhan (DW 1) has deposed that the applicant does not sell milk and that he was telling the Food Inspector when the sample was being taken that the milk was not meant for sale but was for being consumed at his house, this contention cannot possibly be accepted as correct. There is no evidence as to from whom the applicant had purchased the milk and for what price. The statement of the Food Inspector shows that the applicant was selling the milk and it is not possible to disbelieve the statement of the Food Inspector on this point, when it is fully corroborated by the documents Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2, which were prepared on the spot.;