M.M. Husain, J.@mdashGuru Prasad revisionist has been convicted and sentenced u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the courts below. He has been awarded six months'' RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months'' RI.
2. It is said that the revisionist was exposing for sale edible oil, and other articles in village Samesi within the circle of Food Inspector Sri O.P. Srivastava. Sample of edible oil was obtained. It was sent to Public Analyst and was found to be adulterated.
3. The revisionist pleaded not guilty in the courts below and even denied the factum of taking of alleged sample by the Food Inspector. His contention is that he is an illiterate, and only affixes thumb marks and cannot sign. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of the Food Inspector and his peon Ramasrey. The presence of Ramasrey at the time of the alleged taking of sample is doubtful because he stated that he had signed the relevant papers but the same do not bear his signatures. One Mohammad Shakil appears as a witness of Ex. Ka-1 which is a memo of sale of articles by the revisionist without obtaining licence. This Mohammad Shakil entered into the witness-box on behalf of the revisionist as DW 1 and stated that his signature was obtained on a blank paper. He had no reason to falsely support the revisionist''s case. Memo of obtaining sample is Ex. Ka-2 and it does not bear Mohammad Shakil''s signature. The circumstance furnishes a clue that most probably Mohammad Shakil''s signature was recorded on a blank paper on which Ex. Ka-1 exists and not on the printed proforma on which Ex. Ka-2 exist. Throughout the proceedings of the present case in the trial court as well as in the lower appellate court the revisionist affixed his thumb mark. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the signature of Guru Prasad appearing upon Ex. Ka-1 to Ka-3 are really of the revisionist. If the revisionist had wrongly asserted in the trial court that he was illiterate it was open to the prosecution to produce revisionist''s signature appearing anywhere and to get his signatures upon Exs. Ka-1 to Ka-3 compared by it. The revisionist is about seventy years old and is running a grocery shop. It is difficult to believe that he had not affixed his signatures anywhere if he was really a literate person. The failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily rebut revisionist''s contention that he could only thumb mark and not sign his name can, therefore, not be lightly brushed aside. The solitary statement of the Food Inspector regarding taking of the alleged sample can in the particular circumstances of the present case, cannot be believed when the Food Inspector says that the revisionist had signed Ex. Ka-1 to Ka-3 and the circumstances of the case indicate that the revisionist cannot sign his name. I am therefore of the opinion that the very fact of taking of the alleged sample of edible oil from the revisionist''s possession by the Food Inspector is not satisfactorily proved by the material on record. The sanction obtained for revisionist''s prosecution is undated. That circumstance also throws grave doubts about its having been accorded after applying his mind by the sanctioning authority. Once the alleged taking of sample by the Food Inspector is not believed, it is obvious that the conviction of the revisionist ordered by the courts below cannot be sustained. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in convicting the revisionist on the basis of material produced before them. The revision is consequently allowed and the conviction and sentence of the revisionist ordered by the courts below are set-aside. Fine, if already paid by the revisionist, shall stand refunded to him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
