I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) Amarjit Singh petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala for an offence under section 16(l)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default of payment of which he was ordered to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala failed.
(2.) The prosecution story in nut shell is that on 1st of July, 1971, at about 7.00 A.M., Food Inspector Shri Ram Mohan Rai visited the shop of the petitioner in Dharampura Bazar, Patiala and found that about 10 kgs. of unindicated milk was lying in a bucket for sale. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector told the appellant about his intention to have a sample of the milk for getting the same tested and analysed. Before the Food Inspector could do anything in this regard the petitioner spilled the milk and Ram Mohan Rai could do nothing in the matter in spite of his best attempt to prevent the petitioner from doing so. This occurrence was witnessed by Manjit Singh and Harkhidmat Singh PWs., two Municipal Committee employees who were with the Food Inspector. It may be mentioned here that both these witnesses, i.e., Manjit Singh and Harkhidmat Singh were given up at the trial stage as having been won over. The Food Inspector filed the complaint in the Court on 2nd July, 1971. The accused-petitioner has examined Iqbal Singh DW. 1 and Avtar Singh DW. 2 in support of his plea that he is a tenant of Shri Mohan Lal, Advocate in the said shop and the said Advocate is exerting pressure on him to vacate the shop and the Food Inspector has only become instrumental to achieve that object of Shri Mohan Lal Advocate.
(3.) The Food Inspector Shri Ram Mohan Rai has appeared as his own witness in support of the complaint and, thus, his interest in seeking the success of the same is obvious. After going through his statement in Court, I am of the view that the same cannot be accepted for another reason, i.e., he has nowhere stated in Court that he ever asked for the sample of the milk from the accused. Though in the complaint he does mention that he asked Amarjit Singh accused to give a sample of the milk for analysis against payment yet while deposing in Court he put forward another case i.e., that he asked for the licence issued in favour of the accused and he (the accused) replied that the same had been lost. He proceeds to state that after the above stated reply of the accused he started filling up some forms when the accused spilled the milk. There is not even a word in this statement that he asked the accused to supply him any sample of milk against sale. It is undoubtedly true that conviction of an accused in such a case can be based on the solitary statement of the Food Inspector but that is so when the said statement is found to be wholly reliable. To my mind, the present evidence of the Food Inspector is lacking in material particulars and cannot, therefore, be a basis for sustaining the conviction of the petitioner. Without discussing the merits of the defence evidence I allow this petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. Petition allowed.;