In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1789 of 2003 Date of decision: May 06, 2009 Sant Singh ... Petitioner Vs. U.T. Chandigarh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 19.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 29.8.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 61 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein referred as 'the Act') Brief resume of facts is that the on 1.8.1996 at about 8.30 a.m. in the area of Sector 30, Chandigarh, Balbir Singh Food Inspector apprehended the petitioner and found 20 kgs of milk for public sale in his possession. After serving notice on form VI, he stirred the milk and purchased 750 mls of milk. Thereafter, he divided the same in three equal parts; put the same in three dry clean bottles and added 20 drops of formalin as preservative in each sample bottle. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed envelope under intimation to the Local Health Crl. Revision No. 1789 of 2003 -2- *** Authority, U.T. Chandigarh and the remaining samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Chandigarh for safe custody. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample was adulterated, a copy of the report was sent to the petitioner and complaint was filed in the court. On appearance in the court, on the application of the petitioner the second sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune for analysis, which also found the sample to be adulterated. The petitioner was charged under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 10 (7) of the Act as the only independent witness C. Karam Singh has not been examined. Having pondered over the argument, I do not find any substance in the same as the requirement of law has been fulfilled by the Food Inspector by joining C. Karam Singh in the investigation. Section 10 (7) casts an obligation on the Food Inspector is to call one or more persons as witnesses at the time of taking the sample. It is further observed that testimony of the Food Inspector alone is sufficient to sustain conviction. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the milk was not properly stirred before taking the sample, it Crl. Revision No. 1789 of 2003 -3- *** may be observed that it has been mentioned in the spot memo Ex.PC that the milk was mixed properly to make it homogenous. Further more it has been categorically deposed by Balbir Singh Food Inspector (PW1) that he took the sample after making it homogenous with the help of measure. As such, it has been duly established that the milk was stirred properly in order to make it homogenous. The impugned judgment, appears to be shorn of any illegality much less irregularity warranting interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, findings no merit in the petition the same dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh for compliance. May 06, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge