The provisions of Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 do not require the witnesses to the seizure to be independent and disinterested.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THAKURLAL Satholia (since deceased) was convicted under Section 16 (l) (a) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to a fine of Rs 300. As the appeal was filed by the son of the deceased, the appellate Court directed that he would not undergo any imprisonment in default of payment of fine, but the fine would be realised according to law.

( 2 ) ON 28-2-63 P. W. 1, the Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality, inspected the grocery shop of the accused in Buxi Bazar within the municipal area of Cuttack city, He purchased a small quantity of Arhar dal suspecting it to be adulterated. A sample of the Arhar dal purchased was seized in presence of two witnesses -Vigilance inspector (P. W. 2) and the Sanitary Inspector (P. W. 3 ). The sample was divided into 3 parts and sealed in three empty bottles one of which was handed over to the accused. Out of the two bottles taken by P. W. 1, one was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the sample contained colouring materials yellow (Coaltar dye present) and who was of opinion that the sample was adulterated as aforesaid colouring matter was prohibited for use under the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The prosecution was launched after obtaining sanction of the Chairman of the Cuttack Municipality. The defence was one of denial. The accused pleaded that the sample sold to the food Inspector (P. W. 1) was not of the very article sold by the accused, that the provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act had not been complied with and that the article sold was purchased by him in the same condition from the wholesaler.

( 3 ) MR. Murty advanced two contentions:

(1) That the sample was taken without complying with the provisions of section 10 (7) of the Act. P. Ws. 2 and 3 not being independent witnesses, there is no reliable evidence that the article in the sample wa" purchased from the accused. (2) The label on the bottle was not signed by the two witnesses and as such the seizure is illegal.

( 4 ) THE second contention has no force. No provision was brought to my notice whereunder the label on the bottle in which the sample article was put is to be signed by any seizure witness. In this case the seizure list was signed by P. Ws. 2 and 3 and the provision of law was fully complied with.

( 5 ) THE first contention requires closer examination. Section 10 (7) of the Act, as it stood before the amendment, so far as is relevant, ran thus-Where the food inspector takes any action under Clause (1) of Subsection (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. Section 10 (1) (a) (i) prescribes that a Food Inspector shall have power to take samples, of any article of food from any person selling such article in this case, P. W. 1 took such sample. Under Section 10 (7), the food inspector shall call not less than two persons to be present at the time when the sample is taken and take their signatures. P. W. 1 took the sample in the presence of the two witnesses P. Ws. 2 and 3 and took their signatures on the seizure list. Thus the elements of the section were fulfilled on its plain language.

( 6 ) MR. Murty, however, contended that though the sub-section refers to the presence of two persons, those two persons must be independent witnesses. The contention has no force. A bare reference to Section 10 (5) would make the position clear. It prescribes that the power conferred by this section includes power to break open any package in which any article of food may be contained or to break open the door of any premises where any article of food may be kept for sale, provided further that the food Inspector shall, in exercising the powers of entry upon, and inspection of any place under this section, follow, as far as may be, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the search or inspection of place by