Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Gurdial Singh has filed this criminal revision against the judgment dated May 24, 1986 of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby his conviction and sentence were maintained for a charge under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and his appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months as also to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dasuya vide his judgment dated November 6, 1985.

The complaint against the petitioner was that on September 25, 1984 Government Food Inspector together with Dr. Dewan Chand, Jatinder Mal and Sanitary Inspector Harbhajan Singh intercepted the petitioner in the area of New Market, Tanda when he was found carrying a drum on his cycle which contained about 11 kilograms of buffalo milk meant for public sale. After serving the requisite notice he purchased 660 mls of milk for analysis on payment of Rs. 2/. The milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts and was sealed into three dry and clean bottles as per rules. One of the these sealed sample bottles was sent in a sealed parcel through Chaman Lal PW to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh and the other two bottles were deposited in the office of Local Health Authority, Hoshiarpur. The Public Analyst analysed the contents of the sample and reported that the sample was deficient in milk fat by 63% and in solids not fat by 21% of the minimum prescribed standard. The petitioner was then tried for the offence and was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

During trial contention of the petitioner was that he was falsely involved in the case. He was an agriculturist and was not a milk vendor. He examined Pritam Singh of his village in his defence.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that before purchasing the milk for sample the Food Inspector had not stirred the milk properly and had not made it homogeneous. In fact in the complaint there was no assertion that the milk was properly stirred before it was purchased for analysis and in these circumstances it could not be said that sampling of the milk was proper and conviction of the petitioner could not be maintained. I, however, find that this contention of the learned Counsel is not valid because in the complaint it was written with hand that 660 mls of buffalo milk was purchased after making the contents of the drum homogeneous with a measure of one kilogram. The contention of the learned Counsel that this addition was made later on and in the carbon copy of the complaint these words were not written is also not tenable because carbon copy of the complaint was not produced on record nor brought to the notice of the Food Inspector. The case of the prosecution, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity on the ground that the sampling was not proper as the entire bulk of milk was not made homogeneous by stirring.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that except the statement of the Food Inspector there was no other evidence to show that sample was properly taken in the presence of independent witnesses. Even the Food Inspector did not make consistent statement and conviction of the petitioner could not be maintained in his testimony. This contention of the learned Counsel is quite valid. The Food Inspector is alleged to have joined one Jatinder Mal son of Hakam Rai Jain of Tanda Urmur and Harbhajan Singh Sanitary Inspector but none of these witnesses was examined. Sanitary Inspector was given up as being unnecessary and no reason was given for not examining the other witness Jatinder Mal. It is true that the Food Inspector is not in a position of accomplice and his evidence alone, if believed, can sustain conviction, but in the present case statement of Harbhajan Singh Food Inspector cannot be relied upon as be stood contradicted by his own statement made in examinationinchief. In this examinationinchief he stated that he summoned Jatinder Mal and Harbhajan Singh Sanitary Inspector before taking sample. In his crossexamintion he gave different version and deposed that he did not know Jatinder Mal PW earlier to the time and date of taking sample. Jatinder Mal had come to the spot per chance and was not summoned by him. Harbhajan Singh Sanitary Inspector was already there and he was not summoned by him. He did not know for what purpose Harbhajan Singh, Sanitary Inspector was present. He denied that in his earlier statement dated 21.5.1985 he stated that after interrogation of the petitioner he summoned Jatinder Mal and Harbhajan Singh PWs. His statement was also inconsistent with respect to the measures with the petitioner and the manner in which he took sample. His case in the complaint as also in his examinationinchief was that he took sample with a measure of 1 kg and petitioner was in possession of only 2 measures i.e. of 1 kg. and 500 mls. but in his crossexamination he stated that he took sample with the help of a measure of 200 mls. He was unable to tell how many times he used that measure for purchasing 660 mls of milk. He disowned his statement made earlier in Court in the month of May. When there is only one witness examined by the prosecution to prove a criminal charge against a petitioner and the veracity of that witness when tested on its own intrinsic merit fails it is not safe to maintain conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the same. Statement of Harbhajan Singh who took different stand at different stages does not inspire confidence and alone is not sufficient for up holding the conviction of the petitioner.

As a result this revision petition is allowed, conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is hereby acquitted.