- (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge;, Jullundur confirming the-order of the learned Additional District Magistrate con' vlcting the petitioners Under Sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentencing Mehar Chand to a fine of Rs. 500/- and Wazir Chand to a fine of Rs. 200/-} in case of default both to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. According to the prosecution case of 20-6-1981 at about 9 in the morning Food Inspector Gartdharb Singh' along with Ram Singh and Gian Singh went to the shop of Mehar Chand accusedetitioner in Basti Ouzan, Jullundur. Wazir Chand accused-petitioner was at that time present at the spot and was selling ice-cream-on behalf of Maihar Chand who was actually running an ice-cream factory in an adjoining building, Wazir Chand, it Is not disputed, was an employee of Mehar Chand. About 10 seers of ice-cream was lying in plastic cups is an ice box. The Food Inspector after disclosing his ldeitity to Wazir Chand gave him the requisite notice and. purchased 12 cups of Ice-cream and mixed them under a pot. The usual formalities were then gone into and the sample taken was found] to be adulterated.
(2.) ON behalf of the prosecution three witnesses were; examined. Bahadur Singh P. W. 1 is only a formal witness proving Exhibit P. A. , a copy of the Municipal resolution authorizing initiation of the prosecution. Food Inspector Gandharb Singh appeared as P. W. 2 and Gian Singh appeared as P. W. 3. The Courts below believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the two petitioners as already mentioned.
(3.) ON revision before me Shri R. L. Aggarwal learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued the case with force and ability and has said all that could possibly be said in favour of the accused persons. To begin with the counsel has submitted that the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have: not been complied with. This Sub-section is stated to be mandatory and, therefore, non-compliance with it has vitiated the trial. Reference has in support of this contention been made to The Stats v. Sadhu Singh MANU/ph/0113/1962,, AIR1962 Pandh 548 , where this Sub-section came up for considers tion before Shamsher Bahadur and Gurdev Singh JJ. It Is true that this provision was described by the learned Judges to be mandatory but It was also observed that this provision merely prescribes a procedure of taking samples of the articles suspected to be adulterated and it would be unreasonable to hold that any non-compliance with it howeiver minor it may be would render the prosecution based upon such taking of samples illegal. I have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling this contention. The counsel then drew my attention to some of the discrepancies but those discrepancies are, in my opinion, discrepancies of truth and not of concoction or falsehood. P. W. 3 has been described by the counsel to be a person under the influence of Food Inspector and it has been stressed that this witness should not have been believed. I am, however, unable to hold that this witness or even the Food Inspector had any motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. This contention is also without merit.;