Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) The notice to the respondents was issued by this Court on its own motion on 29th of April, 1975.
(2.) The facts of the case are that on March 18, 1974, Dr. S.B. Bedi, Medical Officer, Phagwara, who was also invested with the powers of the Food Inspector, purchased 300 grams of linseed oil, as a sample from 10 kilograms of the oil lying at the premises of the respondent Nathu Ram. The sample was found by the Public Analyst to be adulterated, on which the respondents were prosecuted. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondents.
(3.) With the help of the Counsel for the parties I have gone through the judgment under revision and also the file of the case. Vide Exhibit P.C., Dr. S.D. Bedi has taken the sample from the respondent Tirath Ram, the agent of the firm M/s. Nathu Ram Sudesh Kumar, who at that time was present at the premises. While signing, Tirath Ram respondent added just ahead of his signatures that the oil was meant for cattle. That writing is now scored off. Dr. Bedi was cross-examined at length on behalf of the respondent about the time when this was scored off. The explanation of Dr. Bedi that the respondent had himself struck off that immediately at his own volition does not appear to be correct. The learned trial Magistrate found that it was at the persuasion of Dr. Bedi that the respondent had struck that off and on that point had adversely commented on the conduct of Dr. Bedi, the Food Inspector. After going through the evidence and the judgment, I also find that the respondent may not have scored off that writing at his own volition. If he was to do it so soon after the writing, then there was no fun in writing that immediately after his signatures. Unless prevailed upon in some manner, the respondent was not expected to score that off. The fact remains that at the earliest opportunity, the respondent had represented to the Food Inspector collecting the sample from him that the oil was not meant for human consumption. The Food Inspector has to prove as a fact that the sample was collected from the linseed oil, which was meant for human consumption. No doubt, linseed oil is an edible commodity but in this part of the country, it is also used as a cattle feed. Besides the Food Inspector, there is no other witness to substantiate the case of the prosecution that the respondent was having linseed oil in his possession to be sold for human consumption. Swaran Singh, peon of the Chief Medical Officer, Kapurthala, who happened to be present, at the time of collection of the sample, some people had collected there. None of them was asked to attest the memo or witness the seizure of the sample. Witnesses were definitely available, which could be examined in support of the case by Dr. Bedi, but he chose not to opt for it. In these circumstances, as the statement of the respondent was not corroborated and the writing of the respondent showed that the oil was not meant for human consumption, the respondents were rightly acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate and I do not find any of those pressing grounds to interfere with the findings of the order of acquittal, which are required in a case of revision.;