It is true that the independant witnesses Mangal (PW 2) and Ram Sewak (PW 3) have not corroborated the version of Food Inspector O.P. Rai (PW 1) but corroboration is not necessary in each and every case because conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a single witness if his version appears to be reliable in all respect. If the label on the bottle in which the sample of ground-nut oil was taken did not bear the signature of the accused, on this count alone, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. Besides this from the version of Food Inspector O.P. Rai, it stands proved that he had taken the sample of ground nut oil as per rules and that on the wrapper he had obtained the signatures of the witnesses an behalf of the applicant it was submitted that the applicant had applied for getting his signature examined by the hand-writing expert but his application was wrongly disallowed by the trial Court. It is true that the Trial Court has disallowed the application moved on behalf of the applicant for getting his signatures examined by a hand writing expert but the "Trial Court did not think it necessary to allow this application because the applicant had admitted his signature on the Panchnama Ex. P-3. Besides this, from the version of Food Inspector also it stands proved that the sample of ground-nut oil was taken from the shop of the applicant/accused Tularam and that the signatures of the witnesses and also of accused Tularam were taken on the same and this version has been believed by the Courts below and I see no reason for disagree.

It was also submitted on behalf of the applicant that Food Inspector was not qualified according to law. But, in what particular way he was not qualified has· not been submitted. From the version of Food Inspector O.P. Rai (PW 1) it stands proved that he was a qualified Sanitary Inspector. It was also submitted on behalf of the applicant that the Public Analyst did not send a report within 45 days to the Health Authority' and as such there was breach of rule 7 (3). The applicant had admitted the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst and incase, he wanted one sample of the ground nut oil taken from his shop then he could have applied to the Court concerned for getting the said sample sent for examination to the Central Food Laboratory, but no such application was made in the Trial Court and so it cannot be said that any prejudice had been caused to the applicant on this Court. From the report of the Public Analyst it stands proved that the sample of ground nut oil was obtained from the vendor applicant- Tularam which on testing did not conform to the prescribed standard laid down for ground nut oil. Regarding the sentence it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the sentence was rather heavy and the applicant is now aged 60 years and that the offence relates to the year 1981 and much time was spent in the trial Court and so the sentence should be reduced. Reliance has been placed on Braham Dass v. State of M.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1789).

It is true that the offence relates to the year 1981 and at that time the applicant was aged about 50 years according to the complaint and so his age must be around 60 years at present and that the applicant had faced the trial for about 4-5 years and so, looking to the circumstances, the jail sentence can be reduced and it will meet the ends of justice.

While maintaining the conviction of applicant Tularam u/s 7/16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the jail sentence is reduced from 6 months R.I. awarded by the trial Court to R.I. for 3 months but the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for 4 months awarded by the trial Court is sustained. The Revision is thus partly allowed. AIR 1988 SC 1789 followed. 1981 (1) MPWN 287 distinguished.