The judgment established the importance of fairness in the actions of the Food Inspector, the requirement of calling independent and disinterested witnesses, and the need to uphold the standard of proof of a crime, particularly in cases entailing a prison term.

1. This motion is by the 2nd accused against his conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. On September 22,1964, he took to T. N. V. Coffee Club, Palghat, buffalo's milk that belonged to the 1st accused, a licensed milk-vendor. The Food Inspector has sworn that he was awaiting the 2nd accused, 20ft. away from the Coffee Club, from 5.30 a.m. that day, that the 2nd accused 'passed in front of him rather close by' at about 6.15 a. m., that when the accused entered the Coffee Club, he followed him to the interior of the Coffee Club and then purchased milk from him for sampling though the accused refused to take the price offered by him on the ground that the milk taken is not his and that the accused 1 and 2 have once before been convicted under the Act. On analysis the milk taken was found to contain not less than 28% of added water. P. W.1 is the Food Inspector, P. Ws. 2 and 3 employees of the Coffee Club, who have attested the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector, and P. W. 4 the peon of the Food Inspector who accompanied him. The 2nd accused, in his statement under S.342, said that the milk was not taken from his pot but from the vessel of the Coffee Club into which he emptied the pot when there was other milk in it. He refused to take the price offered by the Food Inspector because the milk taken by the latter did not belong to him. P. W. 3 has sworn categorically that the milk sampled by the Food Inspector was taken from a vessel kept in the Coffee Club, to collect milk from several vendors, that before the 2nd accused other vendors had come and poured their milk into it, and that the practice of the Coffee Club was to wash into that vessel the last drop of milk in the vendor's pot with water to dilute the milk for boiling. The District Magistrate found the 2nd accused guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-; and, on appeal, the same have been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Palghat. Hence this motion for revision.

3. Where the offence is highly anti-social and revolting and therefore likely to rouse an emotional prejudice in the mind of the Court, a greater care in the scrutiny of the evidence is called for. The offence here is a grave one punishable with a drastic sentence in which imprisonment for a year or more and fine not less than Rs. 2000/- are mandatory. Prudence requires that the action of the Food Inspector on which the charge rests should be such as to inspire confidence in Court. The seizure and sampling by the Food Inspector should have been made in the presence of persons above susceptibility of his influence. S.10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, before its amendment by Act XLIX of 1964, read thus:

"10.:(1) A food inspector shall have power - "(a) to take samples of any article of food from

(i) any person selling such article;

(ii) any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee;

(7) Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1),...' he shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures."

By the Act XLIX of 1964 the words "as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures" in sub-section (7) have been substituted by the words "call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or her signatures." If the requirement of calling persons to witness the action of the Food Inspector is to assure fairness in the action I have no doubt that it is designed to that end the persons called must be independent and disinterested, and not susceptible to influence of the Food Inspector. It is essential then that the witnesses concerned must be persons unconnected with trade in articles of food. In State v. Sadhu Singh