Gopal Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is revision petition by Ram Parkash. He was convicted by Shri Harnam Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954, by his judgment dated January 31, 1968 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1.000 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, Shri Asa Singh Gill, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by his judgment dated June 1,1968, maintained the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the case are as Tinder: Piara Lal, Food Inspector, Ludhiana was on his round on April 15, 1967 to take milk samples in the locality near the Frontier Mechanical Works at G.T. Road. He intercepted the Petitioner near the shop of Brij Lal tea -vendor. The Petitioner was carrying 8 kilograms of milk in a drum. It was meant for sale. A sample of milk was purchased by Piara Lal close to the shop of Brij Lal. The Petitioner was served with notice, copy of which Exhibit P.A. is signed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also signed receipt Exhibit P.B. drawn up Piara Lal in taken of the sale of 660 grams of milk by the Petitioner to Piara Lal for 60 paise. This receipt is attested by Brij Lal Memo pertaining to the recovery of sample of milk purchased by Piara Lal from the possession of the Petitioner is Exhibit P.C. This document is also signed by the Petitioner and attested by Brij Lal. Out of the three bottles in which the sample was sealed one bottle was delivered to the Petitioner, one was sent to the Public Analyst and the third retained by Piara Lal. On test the Public Analyst found that there was deficiency of 21 percent of solids not fat in the sample of milk sent to him for analysis. Report of the Public Analyst is Exhibit P.D. The case of the prosecution was supported by the testimony of Piara Lal P.W. I, Brij Lal P.W. 2 and the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.D. Brij Lal P.W. turned hostile. His evidence in support of the prosecution case was, however, believed by the trial Court. In his statement under Section 342. Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner admitted that the copy of notice Exhibit P.A., receipt Exhibit P.B. and memo pertaining to the recovery of sample of milk. Exhibit P.C., bore his signatures but denied that any recovery of sample of milk had been made from him. Shri R.P. Bali appearing on a behalf of the Petitioner has contended that Piara Lal Food Inspector is inimically disposed towards the Petitioner and that under Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, at least one independent witness of the locality must have been examined.
(3.) THERE is no doubt that in course of cross -examination, it was admitted by Piara Lal P.W. that Krishan Lal brother of the Petitioner involved him in a corruption case for offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and that because of that case he was suspended on August 25, 1967. The recovery of milk sample from the possession of the Petitioner took place on April 15, 1967. Piara Lal P.W. was suspended on August 25, 1967. The Petitioner did not pursue the matter further in course of cross -examination of Piara Lal P.W. to elicit the information about the date when complaint or report had been made by Krishan Lal for prosecution of Piara Lal for offence of corruption nor any documentary evidence has been placed on the record to show that Piara Lal had been proceeded against prior to the date of April 15, 1967 when he effected recovery of milk sample from the possession of the Petitioner. The plea of enmity on the part of Piara Lal against the Petitioner was raised by the Petitioner. It was incumbent upon him not apply to substantiate the facts pertaining to that plea but also to establish that Piara Lal had been prosecuted at the instance of Krishan lal brother of the Petitioner before the date of recovery of sample of milk from the possession of the Petitioner. It was open to him to do so not only by further cross -examining Piara Lal on the subject but also by placing documentary evidence on the record to show that Piara Lal had been proceeded against for corruption at the instance of the Petitioner prior to the date of occurrence in the present case. The suspension of the Petitioner came off 41/2 months after the date of occurrence. It was obligatory for the Petitioner to show that although Piara Lal was suspended 41/2 months after the occurrence, proceedings for prosecution of Piara Lal had been initiated at the instance of Krishan Lal before the date of occurrence. Avoidance to cross -examine Piara Lal on the subject and withholding of documentary evidence from production before the Court to show that Piara Lal had been prosecuted before the date of occurrence show that had Piara Lal been further cross -examined and had the documentary evidence been placed before the Court, the information sought for in course of cross -examination and the documentary evidence would have gone against the fact of the prosecution of Piara Lal having been connected prior to the date of occurrence. Thus the ground of the enmity is of no avail to the Petitioner in the absence of the proof of the fact that Krishan Lal sought to prosecute Piara Lal for corruption prior to the date of occurrence. Thus the defence have failed to show the existence of enmity or all will (sic) on the Part of Piara Lal against the Petitioner on the date of occurrence.;