Judgment B. N. Katju, J. 1. KEDAR Nath has filed this appeal against the judgment of III Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dated 19-4-1977 passed in S. T. No. 422 of 1976 convicting him under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to three years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. En default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo six months' R. I. 2. THE case of the prosecution is that Surendra Singh, Food Inspector Pardaha Block District Azamgarh purchased 600 grams of Haldi from the shop of Kedar Nath appellant in Ghosi market District Azamgarh on 5-12-1975 at about 1.30 p. m. for Rs. 2.40 p. He divided the Haldi purchased b him into three equal parts and sealed each part in three separate phials. He gave one of the phials to the appellant and sent two phials to the Deputy Chief Medical Officer Azamgarh for sending one of them to the Public Analyst for analysis. Ext. Ka 1 is the notice in form VI given by the Food Inspector to the appellant at the time of the purchase of the Haldi. Ext. Ka 2 is the receipt of the payment of the price of the Haldi obtained by the Food Inspector from the appellant. Ext. Ka 3 is the memo prepared by the Food Inspector on the spot (Sthal Lekh). One of the sample phials was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. THE report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample of Haldi was adulterated as it was found to be coloured with lead chromate which is a prohibited dye, A complaint under Section 7/16 of the Act was filed against the appellant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Azamgarh on 3-3-1976. 3. TWO eye-witnesses were examined by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime, namely, Surendra Singh Food Inspector (PW 1) and Kamta Singh (PW 2). 4. THE appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity. Two witnesses were examined in defence, namely, Dharapati Rai (DW 1) and Kailash Nath Singh (DW 2). 5. JAMUNA Prasad Misra (CW 1) was examined as a court witness. 6. 4. THE appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was implicated falsely due to enmity. Two witnesses were examined in defence, namely, Dharapati Rai (DW 1) and Kailash Nath Singh (DW 2). 5. JAMUNA Prasad Misra (CW 1) was examined as a court witness. 6. THE trial court after considering the Evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. This appeal was originally heard by a learned Single Judge. He referred the whole case for decision by a Division Bench as there were some conflicting decisions of this Court as to whether the Food Inspector of one Block of a District had jurisdiction to take samples of food from other Blocks of the same District. That is how this appeal has come up for decision before us. 7. IN the case of Ram Dulare v. State, 1979 AWC 197 K. C. Gera, who was Sanitary INspector of Harbansh Mohal, Kanpur, had purchased sample of milk from the appellant on 30-11-1975 in Mohalla Juhi Kalan, Kanpur. It was held by Bakshi, J. that Sri Gera was appointed Food INspector under section 9 of the Act by the Governor. The area over which he could exercise jurisdiction was the area over which he had already been exercising jurisdiction viz. Harbansh Mohal. He thus had no jurisdictibn to take sample of milk from the appellant in Mohalla Juhi Kalan. The entire proceedings were thus vitiated. 8. IN the case of Sewa Ram v. State, 1979 ACC 254, Brijesh Swarup Sharma, who was the Food INspector of Tahsil Jalilpur, had purchased sample of confectionery from the appellant in the city of Najibabad. The decision in the case of Ram Dularey (supra) was followed and it was held by Saxena,J. that Brijesh Swarup Sharma Food INspector Jalilpur had no jurisdiction to purchase the sample of confectionery in the city of Najibabad. On that ground the conviction of the appellant was set aside. In the case of Ramesh Chandra v. State, 1980 ACrR 206, Virendra Singh Food Inspector Ward No. 31-A had purchased Barfi from the appellant on 24-8-1976 near the old Panki temple Kanpur in Ward No. 36. It was held by Bakshi, J. that the case of Ram Dulare (supra) was incorrectly decided as the notification no. In the case of Ramesh Chandra v. State, 1980 ACrR 206, Virendra Singh Food Inspector Ward No. 31-A had purchased Barfi from the appellant on 24-8-1976 near the old Panki temple Kanpur in Ward No. 36. It was held by Bakshi, J. that the case of Ram Dulare (supra) was incorrectly decided as the notification no. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated 22-11-1973 had not been placed before him at the time of the decision of the aforesaid case. Under that notification, the Food Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh have jurisdiction over the whole of the District in which they are posted. 9. IN the case of Hira Lal v. State, , 1981 ACrR 76, Dharmdeo Yadav Food INspector Jahanaganj Block District Azamgarh had purchased mustard oil from the appellant on 3-12-1975 in Dohrighat Block District Azamgarh. It was held by P. N. Goel, J. that even under the notification No. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated 22-11-1973 Dharmdeo Yadav Food INspector had no jurisdiction to purchase sample of mustard oil from the appellant in Dohrighat Block. The conviction of the appellant could not, therefore, be sustained. 10. IT appears from the order of the Deputy Director Medical and Health Services dated 17th February 1959 that Surendra Singh was appointed Sanitary Inspector P. H. U. Baitalpur District Deoria. Notification No. 7315/XVI-X- 722/55 dated November 21, 1973 is as follows :- "In exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act. No. 37 of 1954, read with section 21 of General Clauses Act 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897), the Governor is pleased to appoint, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, all Chief Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors referred to in Notification No. 1207/XVI-II-722/55. dated 15th April, 1968 as amended by Notification No. U. O. 329/XVI-X-722/55, (T. C.) dated 15th December, 1971, who possess the qualifications prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as 'Food Inspector' in Uttar Pradesh for the whole of the District in which they are for the time being posted." Notification No. 1207/XVI-II-722/55 dated 15-4-1968 is as follows ;- " In supersession of notifications no. 10656 (iv) /XVI-PH-722-1955, dated February 9, 1956, as amended by no. 862 (ii)/XVI-722-1955, dated September 16, 1958, no. 2320/XVI-722-1955 dated June 27, 1960 and no. 10656 (iv) /XVI-PH-722-1955, dated February 9, 1956, as amended by no. 862 (ii)/XVI-722-1955, dated September 16, 1958, no. 2320/XVI-722-1955 dated June 27, 1960 and no. 4368/XVI-722- 1955, dated October 12, 1961 and in exercise of the powers under section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XLIX of 1964), the Governor is pleased to appoint, with effect from March 1, 1965, the following persons as Food Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh, for areas assigned to them as under :- (a) For Rural Areas including Town Areas and Notified Areas (i) All District Medical Officers of Health, Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Medical Officer-in-charge Anti-Epidemic Operations and Sanitary Inspectors (whether in the service of the Government of U. P. or employed by any local body) in respect of the areas falling within their respective jurisdictions. (ii) Sanitary Inspector employed by the Shri Badri Nath and Shri Kedar- nath Temples Committee (in case he is possessed of qualification prescribed under rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955), in respect of the area falling within his jurisdiction. (b) For Nagar Mahapalika and Nagar Palikas All Municipal Medical Officers of Health, Additional Municipal Medical Officers of Health, Assistant Medical Officers of Health, Medical Officers In charge Anti Epidemic Operation, Chief Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors as well as above officers of the Nagar Mahapalika in respect of the areas falling in their respective jurisdictions. (c) For Cantonment Areas All Senior Executive Medical Officers, Officers Commanding Military Hospitals, Medical Officers and Sanitary Inspectors in respect of the above areas falling in their respective jurisdiction. In a cantonment in which no such officer is available to exercise these powers, the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board shall be the Food Inspector only within the limits of the Cantonment in which he is employed." It is clear from notification No. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated 22-11-1913 that Sanitary Inspectors referred to in notification No. 1207/XVI-1I-722/55 dt.15-4-1968, who possessed the qualifications prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were appointed as Food Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh for the whole of the District in which they were posted. Thus even though under notification No. 1207/XVI-IS-722/55 dated 15-4-1968 Sanitary Inspectors were appointed as Food Inspectors for areas assigned to them, but under notification no. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated 22-11-1973 they were appointed as Food Inspectors for the whole of the District in which they were posted. Thus even though under notification No. 1207/XVI-IS-722/55 dated 15-4-1968 Sanitary Inspectors were appointed as Food Inspectors for areas assigned to them, but under notification no. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated 22-11-1973 they were appointed as Food Inspectors for the whole of the District in which they were posted. It appears from the statement of Surendra Singh (PW 1) that in December 1915 he was posted in Pardaha Block in District Azamgarh. In view of notification No. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated 22-11-1973 he was appointed as Food Inspector for the whole of Azamgarh District. He was, therefore, competent to take sample of food from Ghosi market in District Azamgarh. In the letter dated 23-11- 1973 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to the Director of Health Services, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, it is mentioned that although under notification no. 7315/XVI-X- 722/55 dated 22-11-1973 the Food Inspectors are appointed for the whole of the District in which they are posted so that their services may be utilised at any place in the District during anti food adulteration drives, they shall not exercise power outside their normal jurisdiction except when authorised in writing by the Chief Medical Officer concerned. In our view, this letter is in the nature of departmental instructions and does not effect the appointment of the Food Inspectors for the whole of the District, in which they were posted, under notification No. 7315/XVI-X-722/55 dated 22-11-1973. In the present case however, written permission of the Chief Medical Officer authorising Surendra Singh Food Inspector to perform duties in the entire district was issued on 3-12-1975. He was thus competent to take the sample of Haldi from the shop of the appellant in Ghosi Market on 5-12-1975. 11. FOR the reasons given above, we agree with the view taken by Bakshi, J. in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. State, 1980 ACrR 206 and we are not in agreement with the view taken by Goel, J. in the case of Hiralal v. State, 1981 ACrR 76. 12. THE appeal may now be considered on its merits. Surendra Singh Food Inspector (PW 1) narrated the prosecution case regarding taking of the sample of Haldi from the shop of the appellant in Ghosi market on 5-12-75. His statement is corroborated by documents Exts. Ka 1 to Ka 3, which were prepared by him at the time of the incident. THE appeal may now be considered on its merits. Surendra Singh Food Inspector (PW 1) narrated the prosecution case regarding taking of the sample of Haldi from the shop of the appellant in Ghosi market on 5-12-75. His statement is corroborated by documents Exts. Ka 1 to Ka 3, which were prepared by him at the time of the incident. It is noteworthy that the signatures of the appellant are present on Ext. Ka 2 and Ka 3, which were admitted by him. The defence of the appellant that these two documents were signed by him when a sample of pepper was taken from his shop cannot be accepted as it appears to be highly improbable. Surendra Singh Food Inspector appears to be independent as he had no previous enmity with the appellant. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that he would have implicated the appellant falsely. Nothing has been brought out in his cross examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is reliable. 13. KAMTA Singh PW 2 corroborated the evidence of Surendra Singh (PW 1). His signatures are also present on Exts. Ka 2 and Ka 3, which establishes his presence at the time of the incident. It is true that his niece is married to the brother of the brother-in law of Surendra Singh (PW 1), which is supported by the Kutumb Register brought by Kailash Singh (DW 2), but this is not sufficient to reject his testimony. Nothing has been brought out in his cross examination to shake his credit. In our opinion, his evidence is reliable. 14. JAMUNA Prasad Misra (CW 1) deposed that on 5-12-1975 Surendra Singh Food Inspector (PW 1) did not purchase sample of Haldi from the shop of the appellant in his presence, but one of the Pood Inspectors purchased pepper from the shop of the appellant and he signed the relevant documents. He admitted his signatures on Exts. Ka 2 and Ka 3, but he was unable to state whether he had signed those documents after reading them or without reading them. Thereafter he stated that he signed those documents when they were blank and then went away. He was unable to state who filled those documents. Considering the fact that he is a retired Food Inspector of Nagar Palika, Azamgarh, it is difficult to believe that he would have signed documents Ext. Thereafter he stated that he signed those documents when they were blank and then went away. He was unable to state who filled those documents. Considering the fact that he is a retired Food Inspector of Nagar Palika, Azamgarh, it is difficult to believe that he would have signed documents Ext. Ka 2 and Ka 3 without reading them or when they were blank. It appears from his cross examination that he is a neighbour of the appellant and was also his customer. It thus appears that he has deposed in favour of the appellant falsely. Dharapati Rai (DW 1) deposed that he was posted as Food Inspector in Ghosi Block from 18-12-1972 and Ext Ka 1, which purports to relate to the purchase of pepper from the shop of the appellant on 5-12-1975, bears the signature of Riyaz Alam Food Inspector. Even if it be accepted that sample of pepper was purchased by Riyaz Alam Food Inspector from the shop of the appellant on 5-12-1975, it does not demolish the testimony of Surendra Singh (PW 1) and Kamta Singh (PW 2) that the sample of Haldi was purchased by Surendra Singh Food Inspector from the shop of the appellant on the same day (5-12-1975). 15. THE evidence of Surendra Singh (PW 1) and Kamta Singh (PW 2) thus establishes that Surendra Singh Food Inspector purchased the sample of Haldi from the shop of the appellant on 5-12-1915. THE report of the Public Analyst shows that the said Haldi was coloured with lead chromate which is a prohibited dye. It was thus adulterated. THE prosecution has thus succeeded 'in establishing the guilt of the appellant under Section 7/16 of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of three years' R. I. awarded to the appellant appears to (be excessive and deserves to be reduced to one year R. I. 16. THIS appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7/16 of the Act is upheld, but the sentence of three years' R. I. awarded to him is reduced to one year R. I. The fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on the appellant is maintained. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo two months R. I. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him.