The necessity of independent witnesses as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the irrelevance of the accused's influence in the absence of a local shop or factory.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17. 10. 84 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 27/84 by the then Sessions Judge, Moradabad, whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the revisionist for the offences u/s 16 (1) (a) (i) of "the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act" (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) IN the case in hand only two witnesses were examined, who are P. W. 1 Namo Narain (Food Inspector) and P. W. 2 Fateh Singh, Food Clerk.

( 3 ) THE glaring aspect of this case is that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The directions contained in sub section (7) of Section 10 of the Act, are imperative. Its compliance was necessary. If the witnesses mentioned in sub Section (7) of Section 10 of the Act are not produced in court to affirm on oath that the action by Food Inspector, was taken in their presence and that they had signed the relevant papers at the time when the sample was taken, the object of sub Section (7) of Section 10 of the Act is bound to frustrate.

( 4 ) LEARNED A. G. A. argued that the persons of the locality whose presence was procured u/s 10 (7) of the Act could not be produced due to the influence of the accused. The matter relating to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are of two kinds:

(i)Where the sample was taken in the locality where the accused had his own shop, factory or house etc. , and (ii)Where the sample was taken at the place where the accused has no shop or house etc.

( 5 ) IT is true in the former case that the persons of the locality seldom give their evidence against the person of their locality due to witnesses sweet relationship with the accused but in the later case the accused neither resides nor has his shop or factory in the locality where the sample was taken from him. Hence the explanation given by the learned A. G. A. , has no legs in the later case.

( 6 ) THE revisionist is such a poor person that he had to sell his milk from door to door, from mohalla to mohalla. Such persons hardly have any influence to win over the witnesses. Non-examination of the witnesses mentioned in sub section (7) of Section 10 of the Act, creates a doubt upon the truthfulness of the present case.

( 7 ) IN this case, all the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are of the Food Department. Where the complaint is filed by the Food Inspector, the employees of his department are bound to support the version of the Food Inspector. The evidence of such witnesses of common department, therefore, cannot be treated as the evidence of more than one witness.

( 8 ) FOR the propose of corroborating the evidence of the witnesses of Food Department there was a need to produce an independent witness. The independent source to corroborate the prosecution version is wanting in this case. The absence of independent witness casts a doubt upon the truthfulness of the prosecution version. I, therefore, find it a fit case where the revision petition be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by appellate court be set aside.

( 9 ) THE revision is allowed. The judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed against the revisionist by the trial court and upheld by appellate court are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted. His bail bond are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. He need not to surrender. Communicate this order to the court below within three weeks.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document