Ram Parkash vs The State Of Punjab

Gopal Singh, J.—This is revision petition by Ram Parkash. He was convicted by Shri Harnam Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954, by his judgment dated January 31, 1968 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1.000 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, Shri Asa Singh Gill, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by his judgment dated June 1,1968, maintained the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner.

The facts of the case are as Tinder:

Piara Lal, Food Inspector, Ludhiana was on his round on April 15, 1967 to take milk samples in the locality near the Frontier Mechanical Works at G.T. Road. He intercepted the Petitioner near the shop of Brij Lal tea-vendor. The Petitioner was carrying 8 kilograms of milk in a drum. It was meant for sale. A sample of milk was purchased by Piara Lal close to the shop of Brij Lal. The Petitioner was served with notice, copy of which Exhibit P.A. is signed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also signed receipt Exhibit P.B. drawn up Piara Lal in taken of the sale of 660 grams of milk by the Petitioner to Piara Lal for 60 paise. This receipt is attested by Brij Lal Memo pertaining to the recovery of sample of milk purchased by Piara Lal from the possession of the Petitioner is Exhibit P.C. This document is also signed by the Petitioner and attested by Brij Lal. Out of the three bottles in which the sample was sealed one bottle was delivered to the Petitioner, one was sent to the Public Analyst and the third retained by Piara Lal. On test the Public Analyst found that there was deficiency of 21 percent of solids not fat in the sample of milk sent to him for analysis. Report of the Public Analyst is Exhibit P.D. The case of the prosecution was supported by the testimony of Piara Lal P.W. I, Brij Lal P.W. 2 and the report of the Public Analyst, Exhibit P.D. Brij Lal P.W. turned hostile. His evidence in support of the prosecution case was, however, believed by the trial Court.

In his statement u/s 342. Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner admitted that the copy of notice Exhibit P.A., receipt Exhibit P.B. and memo pertaining to the recovery of sample of milk. Exhibit P.C., bore his signatures but denied that any recovery of sample of milk had been made from him.

Shri R.P. Bali appearing on a behalf of the Petitioner has contended that Piara Lal Food Inspector is inimically disposed towards the Petitioner and that u/s 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, at least one independent witness of the locality must have been examined.

There is no doubt that in course of cross-examination, it was admitted by Piara Lal P.W. that Krishan Lal brother of the Petitioner involved him in a corruption case for offence u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and that because of that case he was suspended on August 25, 1967. The recovery of milk sample from the possession of the Petitioner took place on April 15, 1967. Piara Lal P.W. was suspended on August 25, 1967. The Petitioner did not pursue the matter further in course of cross-examination of Piara Lal P.W. to elicit the information about the date when complaint or report had been made by Krishan Lal for prosecution of Piara Lal for offence of corruption nor any documentary evidence has been placed on the record to show that Piara Lal had been proceeded against prior to the date of April 15, 1967 when he effected recovery of milk sample from the possession of the Petitioner. The plea of enmity on the part of Piara Lal against the Petitioner was raised by the Petitioner. It was incumbent upon him not apply to substantiate the facts pertaining to that plea but also to establish that Piara Lal had been prosecuted at the instance of Krishan lal brother of the Petitioner before the date of recovery of sample of milk from the possession of the Petitioner. It was open to him to do so not only by further cross-examining Piara Lal on the subject but also by placing documentary evidence on the record to show that Piara Lal had been proceeded against for corruption at the instance of the Petitioner prior to the date of occurrence in the present case.

The suspension of the Petitioner came off 41/2 months after the date of occurrence. It was obligatory for the Petitioner to show that although Piara Lal was suspended 41/2 months after the occurrence, proceedings for prosecution of Piara Lal had been initiated at the instance of Krishan Lal before the date of occurrence. Avoidance to cross-examine Piara Lal on the subject and withholding of documentary evidence from production before the Court to show that Piara Lal had been prosecuted before the date of occurrence show that had Piara Lal been further cross-examined and had the documentary evidence been placed before the Court, the information sought for in course of cross-examination and the documentary evidence would have gone against the fact of the prosecution of Piara Lal having been connected prior to the date of occurrence. Thus the ground of the enmity is of no avail to the Petitioner in the absence of the proof of the fact that Krishan Lal sought to prosecute Piara Lal for corruption prior to the date of occurrence. Thus the defence have failed to show the existence of enmity or allwill(sic) on the Part of Piara Lal against the Petitioner on the date of occurrence.

As provided in Section 10(7) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, a Food Inspector is to associate with him as a witness or witnesses one or more persons at the time when he is to take action for taking sample. As stated by Piara Lal P.W. 1 and Brij Lal P.W. 2, the shop of the latter is close to the place where the Petitioner was intercepted and sample of milk taken. The Petitioner is a milk vendor. He visits the city of Ludhiana to sell milk to halwais(sic) and to tea vendors. Brij Lal P.W , who is a tea vendor and whose shop is close to the place where the Petitioner was stopped is a natural witness. In the beginning of his examination-in-chief, he admitted that Piara Lal intercepted the Petitioner and that the Petitioner was carrying some milk in his drum. Then he denied that Piara Lal P.W. purchased any milk from the Petitioner. At this stage, the Food Inspector was allowed to cross-examine the witness. In course of that cross-examination, he admitted that Piara Lal purchased milk from the Petitioner and paid him price of 60 paisa for the simple taken. He also admitted that receipt Exhibit P.B was signed by the Petitioner and attested by him. He further stated that the sample of milk taken was divided into three lots and sealed in three bottles after some chemical being added to the milk in the bottles. He adds that these bottles were sealed, that two bottles were retained by Piara Lal and one was given to the Petitioner. The witness further said that the Petitioner signed recovery memo, Exhibit P.C. The witness also admitted the fact of his having appended his signature to these documents as an attesting witness. By virtue of this statement, Brij Lal P.W. has proved all the relevant facts pertaining to the recovery of milk sample from the bulk of the milk, which the Petitioner carried in his drum. He unambiguously admits to have signed the receipt Exhibit P.B. and the recovery memo Exhibit P.C. as attesting witness after they were drawn up by Piara Lal Food Inspector and had been signed by the Petitioner. In spite of Brij Lal P. W. having turned hostile in course of examination-in-chief after having stated certain facts in support of the prosecution case, he reverted to truth when he was subjected to cross-examination by the Food Inspector. He is a natural witness. He has satisfactorily proved the recovery of sample of milk from the possession of the Petitioner. They receipt Exhibit P.B. and the memo of recovery of the sample of milk Exhibit P.C. are attested by him. He has stated that the Petitioner appended his signatures to these documents.

The Petitioner himself has admitted his signatures on all the three documents. In his statement u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner never suggested the plea of his signatures having been obtained on blank papers. It is only the Counsel for the Petitioner, who suggested that the signatures of the Petitioner had been obtained on blank papers. Notice Exhibit P.A., receipt Exhibit P.B. and recovery memo Exhibit P.C. are prescribed and printed forms. Signatures of both the Petitioner and Brij Lal P.W. as attesting witness appear on these prescribed forms. The question, therefore, of the Petitioner having signed some blank papers is a hollow suggestion and has no legs to stand.

The two courts below have relied upon the testimony of Piara Lal and Brij Lal P. Ws., the two material witnesses of unimpeachable presence, I am not going to interfere on the question raised about their credibility. Their evidence establishes that the sample of milk was taken from the possession of the Petitioner.

The provision of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure for association of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality is different from Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act, which provides for one more witnesses being associated with Food Inspector at the time the sample of any article of food is sought to be taken. In Section 10(7) of the Act, there is no limit provided as to the witness being the witness of the locality, in which the action for obtaining sample is taken by Food Inspector. Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure also specifically says that the witnesses should be at least two. The requirement of the provision of Section 10(7) will be complied with, if one witness even not of the locality is associated by Food Inspector with him at the time the sample is sought to be taken. In the present case, even Brij Lal P.W. is a witness of the locality. The sample was recovered from a place close to his shop. The provision of Section 10(7) has thus been more than satisfied in associating Brij Lal P.W. with the action of taking of sample by the Food Inspector. The second point raised on behalf of the Petitioner also has no force.

For the foregoing reasons, I disallow the revision, uphold the conviction of the Petitioner and maintain his sentence. The Petitioner, who was released on bail shall forthwith surrender to his bail bond and be taken in custody to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.