J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.) On Nov. 5, 1970, Gurdev Singh Gill, Government Food Inspector, Ludhiana, visited the shop of the petitioner at Dayanand Road, Ludhiana and found him having in possession for sale 4 Kgs. of Balushahi cooked in Vanaspati. After disclosing his identity, he purchased 600 grams of Balushahi against payment. The sample was divided into three equal parts and put in three bottles which were sealed. One of them was left with the petitioner and another was sent to the Public Analyst for chemical analysis ho reported that the sample had been coloured with prohibited orange coal tar dye. The petitioner was challaned. The trial Magistrate convicted him under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated Jan. 4, 1975. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Ram Nath, a non-official witness, who had been associated at the time of the alleged taking of sample from the shop of the petitioner was not produced by the prosecution and was rather produced as a defence witness. He did not support the prosecution case. In view of this, the lower Courts were not justified in convicting the petitioner. There is no merit in this contention. Ram Nath was not produced as a prosecution witness because he had allegedly been won over by the petitioner. The petitioner produced him as a defence witness and he admitted his signatures on the relevant documents Exhibits PA to PC. He added that when he was called by the Food Inspector the sample had already been taken and his signatures were obtained on documents Exhibits PA to PC and the petitioner was not present at that lime. In my opinion, the Courts below have rightly held that Ram Nath has given an intentional twist in his statement to help the petitioner. It is improbable that he would sign the documents if the proceedings relating to the taking of sample had not been conducted in his presence. It is not proved that he was in any way under the influence of the Food Inspector. The Courts below were justified in discarding the testimony of Ram Nath and relying upon the prosecution evidence led for convicting the petitioner.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the sample was taken in 1970. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Magistrate on Dec. 22, 1973. His appeal was dismissed on Jan. 4, 1975. As the matter is fairly old, the petitioner may be given the benefit of probation. I see no force in this contention. The food adulteration is an offence against the society. A food adulterator, therefore, deserves to be dealt with deterrently. To allow the benefit of probation to the petitioner would be completely misplaced.;