Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) By the Judgment and order dated 26th Nov., 1976, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, convicted the petitioner under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for l-i/2 months. The appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 16th Sept., 1978. He has now come up in revision before this Court.
(2.) Prosecution case is supported by Dr. P.N. Thapar, P.W. 1 who took the sample of milk from the petitioner which was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst proceedings were initiated at the instance of Dr. P.N. Thapar and the petitioner was convicted. I have perused the record. Much reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of Dr. P.N. Thapar in view of the observations made by the trial Court in para 8 of the Judgment regarding implication of Bant Singh which reads as under:- "8. I find that there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused. The prosecution in this case produced only Dr. P. Thapar. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that Pritam Singh accused told him that he was the servant of Bant Singh and the milk was belonging to Bant Singh accused. He verified this fact that Pritam Singh was the servant of Bant Singh from the other milk sellers intercepted there. But in his cross-examination, he stated that except the accused Pritam Singh nobody else told him that Pritam Singh was the servant of Bant Singh accused. He did not verify from anybody even afterwards if there was any relationship of master and servant between Pritam Singh and Bant Singh. He had no personal knowledge that accused Pritam Singh was the servant of Bant Singh. The statement of Dr. Thapar is self-contradictory and inconsistent. He stated something else in his examination-in-chief and stated something other in his cross-examination. It clearly shows that Dr. Thapar made a false statement regarding the implication of accused Bant Singh."
(3.) The trial Court held that Dr. Thapar made a false statement regarding the implication of Bant Singh. In view of this it cannot be said that he made a correct statement regarding the present petitioner and no reliance can be placed on such a witness and it is not safe to maintain the conviction on the sole testimony of the witness who made a false statement regarding implication of the co-accused.;