P.N.Harkauli - (1.) BRAHM Dutt, Iqbal and Kallu, applicants, have come up in revision against the order passed by the learned Civil & Sessions Judge, Meerut whereby he dismissed the applicants' appeal and maintained their convections under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 12-4-1972 the Food Inspector Sri Lalit Prakash Mittal found the applicants carrying milk for sale, that he: purchased samples from them and duly sealed the samples in phials and completed other formalities and thereafter when he was about to leave two other persons Jumma and Habib (who were also prosecuted but were acquitted by the appellate Court) came to that place and snatched the phials, threw them away causing them to break and also tore the papers. It was said that thereupon the: applicants also joined in the snatching; of the samples and papers. The applicants denied these allegations and alleged that they have been falsely implicated by the Food Inspector because they did not give illegal gratification demanded by him. The prosecution examined three witnesses to prove its case namely, the Food Inspector Lalit Prakash Mittal (PW 1), Hari Singh Nag (PW 2) and Debi Saran (PW 3). The appellate Court was of the opinion that "the testimony of these two prosecution witnesses Hari Singh Nag and Debi Saran, should not be relied upon against these accused (i. e. the applicants) as well". He, however, accepted the evidence of the Food Inspector and convicted and sentenced the applicants on the basis of his testimony.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicants contended that the evidence of the Food Inspector was wholly unreliable and the learned appellate court was in error in convicting the applicants on its basis. Now, in revision findings of fact are normally not disturbed. But in this case something has come in the evidence of the Food Inspector himself which to my mind cuts at the very root of its evidence and in such a case I think interference even with the findings of fact cannot be avoided. As already stated it was the definite evidence of the Food Inspector that he took samples of milk from all the three applicants, and after complying with all the formalities i. e. preparation of the recovery memo and sealing of the samples etc. he was about to leave and it was only then that the two other persons Jumma and Habib came and the trouble started. It follows from this that the sealing and labelling etc. of the samples had taken place before the phials were snatched. Now, if we turn to the cross-examination of the Food Inspector we will find that he has clearly stated that after he lodged the report the police investigated the case and took the broken parts of the phials into its possession and sealed them. He has further stated that the upper portions of five phials, which were fitted with corks, were there amongst the exhibits before the court but none of these parts bore the seal. He also admitted that on none of the portions of the broken phials was there any label. Now if the corks were still there in the necks of the phials, then if the phials had really been sealed, the seals or portions of the seals should have been there on at least some of these bottle-necks. The absence of any seal on any of these bottle-necks, specially when the corks are intact, cannot but throw a serious doubt on the evidence of the Food Inspector that he had taken samples and sealed them etc. In view of this patent inherent weakness in the evidence of the Food Inspector, I find it very difficult to sustain the conviction which is based on the solitary statement of the Food Inspector.;