Report of public analyst whether an opinion of finding of fact.

The petitioner has challenged the correctness and legality of the conviction and sentence passed on him by the First-Class Magistrate, Raichur, in C.C. No. 1183 of 1970, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. As it was found that even after conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner had not made State a party-respondent in this revision petition, I directed Sri M. Ramakrishna, Government Pleader, who is present in Court in connection with other matters, to take notice of this petition and argue on behalf of the State, He obliged the Court by taking notice immediately and argued on behalf of the State.

3. The prosecution case is that at about 2-30 p.m. or 3 p.m. on 7th February, 1970 P.W. 1 the Food Inspector went to the shop of the petitioner The petitioner is a retail dealer in grocery articles. P.W. 1 called P.W. 2 Mahaboob and another person by name Abdul Salam who were nearby to witness his purchasing sample of Toor Dal from the petitioner. P.W. 1 issued notice as per Exhibit; P-1 to the petitioner that he was going to purchase sample of Toor Dal for purposes of getting the same analysed by a Public Analyst. The petitioner received the notice Exhibit P-1. Then P.W. 1 purchased 600 grams of Toor Dal by paying 0.96. P., the price of the same to the petitioner. The petitioner issued receipt Exhibit P-2 for having received 0.96 P. for the sale of 600 grams of Toor Dal. Then P.W. 1 got a panchanama recorded as per Exhibit P-3. That panchanama is in regard to dividing of the sample of 600 grams into three packets and sealing the same and handing over one of the sealed packets to the petitioner. The two panchas P.W. 2 Mahaboob and Abdul Salam as well as the petitioner affixed their thumb-impressions or signatures as the case may be on Exhibit P-3. The panchanama, Exhibit P-3, was recorded in the presence of all these persons. Thereafter P.W. 1 sent one of the sealed sample packet to the Public Analyst at Bangalore, who sent his report as per Exhibit P-6 stating that the Toor Dal analysed by him contained prohibited colouring. It is on receipt of this report that P.W. 1 lodged his complaint against the petitioner on 22nd July, 1970.

4. The defence put forward by the petitioner is one of total denial. He has even denied having sold any Toor Dal to P.W. 1 as contended by the prosecution. It may be mentioned at this stage that he has not attempted to explain his signatures below Exhibits P-2 and P-3, and so also on the obverse of Exhibit P-1.

5. Sri B.S. Raikote, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the evidence of P.W. 1 ought not to have been accepted and relied upon by the two Courts below in view of the fact that the only panch examined i.e. Mahaboob, P.W. 2 has not supported the prosecution in regard to the transaction of sale of Toor Dal by the petitioner to P.W. 1 and dividing of that sample of Toor Dal into three packets as mentioned in Exhibit P-3. He urged that it would not be safe to rely on the sole testimony of P.W. 1, in this regard. The two Courts below have, in my opinion, rightly rejected such a contention put forward before them. As already mentioned above. Exhibit P-1 is the notice issued by P.W. 1 to the petitioner before purchasing 600 grams of Toor Dal from the petitioner, and the petitioner has affixed his signature on the obverse of it. Exhibit P-2 is a receipt issued by the petitioner to P.W. 1 for having received 0.96 P. on selling 600 grams of Toor Dal to P.W. 1. It bears the signature of the petitioner below it. Even the panchanama Exhibit P-3 which nar