IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of malice or allegation of victimization criminal proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated merely because no independent witness was examined.

JUDGMENT

Mahesh Grover, J. — This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 8.7.1993 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order of sentence dated 23.12.1991 rendered by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot convicting and sentencing him for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short, ‘the Act’) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, was dismissed.

2. On 21.12.1989, the shop of the petitioner situated at village Kathlaur was raided by the Food Inspector Dr. Ravi Kumar Dogra accompanied by Dr. S. S. Bhindar, District Health Officer. After disclosing their identity to the petitioner and after expressing the intention to purchase a sample of mustard oil, 375 grams thereof was purchased for an amount of Rs. 7.90 from a tin of mustard oil meant for public sale and human consumption.

3. On analysis, the contents of the sample of mustard oil were found “hazy with sediments settled at the bottom whereas mustard oil should be clear and free from suspended of foreign matter.”

4. Accordingly, the prosecution proceedings were launched against the petitioner and a complaint preferred seeking his conviction for having violated the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act.

5. After appraisal of the evidence led before it, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence alleged against him. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced in the manner noticed hereinabove.

6. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge did not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and upheld the same.

7. Hence, the petitioner is in revision petition before this Court.

8. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the provisions of Section 16A of the Act, the trial Court has to try the case summarily and not by following the procedure prescribed for a warrant’s case as has been done in the instant case and, therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Sikander v. State of Haryana.1

9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no independent witness had been examined and even though, it was stated that Dr. S. S. Bhindar was accompanying the Food Inspector and an independent witness enjoined, yet, they were not produced as witnesses.

10. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that affidavit Ex. PK filed by the official of the office of Local Health Authority, Gurdiaspur, who had received the samples, was not verified in accordance with law and, hence, the crucial link evidence was rendered untrustworthy.

11. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were refuted by the learned counsel for the State, who contended that there was no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below and non-examination of the independent witnesses would not ipso facto cast any doubt or aspersion on the prosecution case if there is ample evidence to hold the petitioner guilty.

12. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

13. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings in the instant case stood vitiated as the trial court followed the procedure prescribed for a warrants case. Section 16A, which was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.1976 and deals with the power of the Court to try cases summarily, is reproduced below:

“Case summarily—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under sub-section (1) of Section 16 shall be tried in a summary