S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) In this criminal revision, Nasib Chand petitioner assails his conviction under section 16/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh not only upheld his conviction but affirmed his sentence. Feeling aggrieved, Nasib Chand has now come up by way of revision.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that on 19-8-1974 at about 5.30 a.m., Shri Kuldip Singh, the then Government Food Inspector, Chandigarh intercepted the petitioner in the area of Sector-20, Chandigarh and found in his possession for sale 15 Its. of unindicated milk contained in a drum. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of the said milk from him for analysis on payment of Rs. 1.50 paise against receipt Ex. PB in the presence of Gurdev Singh PW. After observing the necessary formalities, a part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst submitted a report after examining the sample and it was found to be adulterated. It is unnecessary to give details of adulteration at this stage as no point has been sought to be made on this score before me and it is not disputed that the sample was found adulterated and, therefore, punishable under the Act.
(3.) The case against the petitioner rests on the testimony of Shri Kuldip Singh, Food Inspector (P.W. 1), and Gurdev Singh (P.W. 2). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that the provisions of S. 10(7) of the Act were not complied with and that rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were contravened. I find some substance in these contentions. Sec. 10(7) of the Act lays down that where the Food Inspector does any action under clause (a) of Sub-secs. (1), (2), (4) and (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. In the instant case, the Food Inspector took this sample in the presence of Gurdev Singh (P.W. 2) who is a milk vendor who happened to be present at the psychological moment. Fie admitted having appeared as a prosecution witness in 6/7 cases on earlier occasions. In the instant case, it can safely be presumed that Gurdev Singh being a milk vendor may be under the influence of the Food Inspector and he could not be said to be an independent and disinterested witness. It is borne out from the record that the Food Inspector had gone out for raid and in such a situation he was expected to have taken along some disinterested witnesses. In this case non-joining of independent witness would certainly affect the credibility of the Food Inspector.;