Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. :- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi confirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. The prosecution case was that at all material times the 1st appellant was the owner of a grocery shop situate at Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and the 2nd appellant was employed as a salesman in the shop. On 23rd June, 1969 Bhanot, a Food Inspector went to the shop of the 1st appellant and finding the 1st appellant there as a salesman, took from him a sample of mustard oil for analysis after paying its purchase price. He divided the sample into three parts and sent one part to the Public Analyst for analysis, handed over the other part to the 2nd appellant and retained the 3rd part with him. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was misbranded as Linseed oil and was adulterated due to the presence of artificial dye. On the strength of this report, the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) before the Judicial Magistrate, Delhi. The defence of the 1st appellant was that the 2nd appellant was at no time engaged by him as the salesman and no mustard oil was purchased by Bhanot from the 2nd appellant. The 2nd appellant also claimed that he was never an employee of the 1st appellant and while he was going to his house after purchasing sarson oil for his personal use, he was caught by two or three persons near Maharani Bagh and a sample was taken from the oil which he was carrying and his signatures were obtained by threat on certain papers. The learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and held that the appellants were guilty of the offence of selling linseed oil containing artificial dye which was an offence punishable under Sec. 7 (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i). The learned Judicial Magistrate accordingly convicted the appellants and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rupees 1000/-. The appellants preferred an appeal, but the appeal was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction was confirmed with only a slight modification in the sentence. The sentence was reduced from nine months to six months rigorous imprisonment. This led to the filing of a revision application in the High Court by the appellants, but the revision application was also unsuccessful. Hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court.

3. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal was that the conviction was bad inasmuch as it rested solely on the evidence of Bhanot and one other Food Inspector, namely Bhatnagar, who happened to come there at the time of taking the sample and there was no independent witness to support the prosecution case. Now, it is true that the prosecution could not produce any independent witness to depose to the taking of the sample by Bhanot from the 2nd appellant at the shop of the 1st appellant but that by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient to warrant rejection of the prosecution case out of hand. The sample was taken by Bhanot in the presence of one Keshav Dutt Sharma and a punchnama evidencing the transaction was prepared and signed by Keshav Dutt Sharma on the spot. But in the witness box Keshav Dutt Sharma turned hostile and denied that he was present at the time of taking the sample. Of course, he could not deny that the endorsement B to B on the Punchanama was in his handwriting and he had put his signature at the foot of it, but his explanation was that one Food Inspector came to the shop where he was working and asked him either to give a sample of the ice-cream he was selling at the shop or to give his signature on the punchanama. This explanation is palpably dishonest and cannot be accepted by any court. Moreover, it