M.R.Sharma, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated Nov. 18, 1972, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, by which he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section (16) (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) On May 13, 1971, at about 10.00 A. M., Shri C. L. Grover, Govern- ment Food Inspector, found the accused carrying about 50 kilograms of cows' milk in a drum. He served him with a notice Exhibit P.A and purchased 660 ml. of milk on payment of 70 paise vide receipt Exhibit P.B. Kartar Singh PW 2 is said to have attested this receipt. The sample of milk was divided into three parts which were put into three dry and clean bottles. After the addition of preservative to each bottle, they were duly stoppered and sealed. One of them was handed over to the petitioner, the other kept in the office of the Chief Medical Officer and the third was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for examination. It transpired that the bottle sent to the Public Analyst was broken on the way. This information was conveyed to Shri C. L. Grover PW 1 through the office of the Chief Medical Officer. Upon this, he collected the second bottle from the office of the Chief Medical Officer and sent it to the Public Analyst for examination. The sample was found to be adulterated.
(3.) At the trial, the prosecution examined C.L. Grover PW 1 and Kartar Singh PW 2. Kartar Singh PW 2 admitted that he was running a tea-stall and that about 8 or 10 years back Shri C. L. Grover had collected one sample of milk from him, which was found to be adulterated. According to this witness, thereafter, his sample was never seized by Shri Grover. If a person dealing in adulterated goods is known to the Food Inspector, then it would be natural for him to purchase further samples of milk from him unless the Food Inspector was deliberately trying to shield that person. I am of the view that Kartar Singh PW 2 was somewhat be holden to the Food Inspector. In these circumstances, it is not possible for me to place implicit reliance upon this witness. The third witness cited by the prosecution was the peon of the Food Inspector but he was not produced at the trial. The Food Inspector when questioned denied having seized any sample of milk from Kartar Singh PW 2. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to rely upon the statement of Shri Grover as well.;