Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1584 (ALL)

Narendra Kumar v. Nagar Swasth Adhikari, Agra

2007-05-23

V.D.CHATURVEDI

body2007
Judgement ORDER :- This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21-7-1986 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1986 whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial Courts judgment dated 10-12-1985 whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine the revisionist was directed to undergo R.I. for 6 months further. 2. The prosecution case is that on 7-6-1978 at about 8.15 p.m. P.W. 1, J.C.Dubey (Food Inspector) took the sample of the milk carried on bicycle by the revisionist. The public analyst reported the adulteration in the milk hence P.W. 1 J.C.Dubey, Food Inspector filed the complaint against the revisionist. The prosecution examined P.W.1 J.C. Dubey and P.W. 2 Suresh Chand (Food Clerk), whereupon the revisionist was convicted and sentenced as above. The revisionist filed the appeal which was dismissed hence this revision. 3. The glaring aspect is that no public witness was produced in the trial Court. 4. Section 10(7) of the Act enumerate that the Food Inspector shall call upon a person or persons to remain present during the action taken by him and will procure the signature of such person or persons. 5. The words "shall call one or more person" does not include those persons who were already accompanying the Food Inspector. The "person called" by the Food Inspector may be of the same locality wherein the sample was taken or may belong to the nearby locality. 6. The purpose and object of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act is bound to frustrate if such person or persons are not produced in Court to affirm on oath that he or they remained present during the action taken by the Food Inspector and that such person or persons have made signatures over the relevant papers and have identified the same in Court. 7. The learned A.G.A. argued that due to witnesses sweet relationship with the accused or due to influence of the accused over public witness , the public witness could not be examined. 8. 7. The learned A.G.A. argued that due to witnesses sweet relationship with the accused or due to influence of the accused over public witness , the public witness could not be examined. 8. In those cases where the samples are taken from the locality where the accused had any shop, house or factory the person of the locality, due to their sweet relationship with the accused, may decline to give evidence against the accused. But in the case in hand, the accused had neither any house, nor shop nor factory in the locality where the sample was taken. Therefore the argument that the person of the locality refused to examine themselves as witnesses on account of their sweet relationship with the accused is not accepted. The accused is a poor person who used to sell milk from Mohalla to Mohalla on his bicycle. Such person who himself is striving for his livelihood may hardly have any influence over the witnesses of the locality where the accused had neither any house, nor shop nor factory. 9. The omission to produce such independent witness as mentioned in Section 10(7) of the Act, in the circumstances of the present case, is bound to raise doubt regarding truthfulness of the prosecution version. 10. The object of sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Act is to ensure the fairness in the action taken against the accused. It is not complied with. Its non compliance, in the circumstances of the case, raises a grave doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version . 11. The revision is allowed. The judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1986 by the AddI. Sessions Judge, Agra and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in Case No. 1028 of 1980 by Judicial Magistrate, Agra are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. 12. Certify the order to the Court below within two weeks. Revision allowed.