IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 184 of 2003. Date of Decision:7.7.2010. _______________________________________________ Pritam Singh. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For Respondent. : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General for respondent-State. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 7(i), (2ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The case against the petitioner is that three sealed packets of “Mirchi” were taken from a shop which were sent for analysis and the report of the public analyst (Ext. PW-4/A) found the sample not conforming to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?. 2 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). On analysis, the public analyst found that the ash insoluble in dilute Hcl is 1.48% against the maximum prescribed standard of 1.3% and non-volatile either extract is 11.19% against the minimum prescribed standard of 12%. A number of grounds have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention that no conviction under the ‘Act’ or the ‘Rules’ can be sustained. One of the grounds urged and which requires consideration in this case is that independent witness required under Section 10 of sub-section (7) of the ‘Act’ has not supported the case of the prosecution and has, in fact, turned hostile. PW-2 Sh. Hoshiar Singh states that three packets of “Mirchi” were taken from the shop of the accused and thereafter nothing else was done in his presence. In other words, this witness does not prove the mandatory sealing of the packets as required by Rules 14 and 15 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The signature of this witness has also not been proved. In this event, the only evidence left is that of the Food Inspector. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the sole testimony of the Food Inspector should and ought to be accepted as he has no enmity with the accused and his statement is a natural narration of the sequence of the events as referred. I cannot accept this submission. If there was an 3 independent witness and he states in no uncertain terms that the only purchase was made and all the subsequent mandatory requirements were not complied with, I do not see any reason to disbelieve this witness when it has been established on record that he has not a partisan witness or is speaking the untruth. This very fact is sufficient to set aside the conviction of the petitioner herein. The reasoning adopted by the learned courts below in accepting the testimony of the Food Inspector in toto without in any manner turning to the other piece of evidence which shows that the samples were, in fact, seized in the presence of this witness but the requirement of the Rules do not comply with, has not been considered in its perspective. In these circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 7, 2010(R)