Jarnail Singh vs The State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.—In this criminal revision, Jarnail Singh petitioner assails his conviction under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal the Sessions Judge, Ambala net only upheld his conviction but confirmed his sentence. Feeling aggrieved, Jarnail Singh has now come up by way of revision.

The prosecution case in brief was that on 10.12.1976 at about 10.30 am. S.L. Chopra, Food Inspector accompanied by Dr J.P. Sharma and Vinu Gopalan, was present near a double-storeyed building, Ambala Cantt. When the petitioner came therewith a drum on his cycle containing 30 Kgs of cow''s milk for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 mls of said milk from him on payment of Re. 1/- for analysis against receipt Ex. P3 after observing the necessary formalities. A part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst submitted a report after examining the sample and it was found to be adulterated. It is unnecessary to give the detail of adulteration at this stage as no point has been sought to be made on this score before me and it is not disputed that the sample was found adulterated and, therefore, punish able under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the unimpeachable testimony of S.L. Chopra, Food Inspector (P.W. 1) and Dr. J.P. Sharma (P.W. 2). The petitioner took rather vacillating pleas in defence and examined three witnesses in support thereof. The trial Court unhesitatingly found that the defence plea taken by the petitioner was merely a cock and bull story and rejected it out of hand. The appellate court has affirmed the said finding. Mr. Chawla appearing for the petitioner has raised the identical argument which were earlier urged before the appellate court and which have been elaborately repealed. To my mind, it would be totally wasteful to tread the same ground over again. It suffices to mention that I would endorse in toto the reasoning and the finding of the appellate Court.

The point urged by the learned counsel with little persistence is that at the time of purchase of sample-milk from the petitioner, Vinu Gopalan was present and he along with the other witnesses also signed documents Exs. PA, PB and PC and that Vinu Gopalan was withheld by the complainant, the prosecution case was fatally affected. It is contended that on the sole testimony of the witnesses from the same Department, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. I do not think that because of the non-examination of Vinu Gopalan, the prosecution case was adversely affected. It is not denied that the signatures of the Food Inspector and Dr. Sharma as required by section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, were obtained. The object of enacting section 10(7) is merely to ensure that the particular sample is taken from the accused. I am disinclined as at present advised, to hold that S. 10(7) must be construed to mean that persons who are called should never belong to the department meant for preventing food adulteration. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not persuaded to hold that S. 10(7) has been violated so as. to vitiate the trial on the ground urged. No other point was urged.

The offence is brought fully home to the petitioner and he has been rightly convicted. It is pointed out that the occurrence took place as far back as 1976 and the petitioner as been granted bail by this Court on April 5, 1978. There is, however, some scope for reduction in the sentence in the present case as the case is now an old one. I accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to nine months and the fine to Rs. 1,000/- as (sic) opinion it would meet the ends of justice.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.