Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Firstly the said defence version when put to Shri Kewal Krishan and Dr. M. L. Tandon. P. Ws. was negatived by them emphatically. Secondly. no question, suggesting that Munshi Ram. Faqir Chand and Rasila Ram. D. Ws., or any one of them was present at the time of taking sample of the milk, was addressed to Shri Kewal Krishan or to Dr. M, L. Tandon during their cross-examination. No explanation for omission to cross-examine them with regard to presence of the said D. Ws. or any one of them at the time when the sample of the milk had been taken, is forthcoming. The thumb-impressions of the respondent appear on notice Exhibit P. A, which had been served by Shri Kewal Krishan on him before taking of sample of the milk and on receipt Exhibit P. B, by means of which the respondent had received 0.75 ps. in cash from Shri Kewal Krishan as price of the milk taken by way of sample and also on Exhibit P.C. which had been prepared by Shri Kewal Krishan at the spoil and by means of which one of the bottles containing sample of the milk had been given to the respondent. The explanation of the respondent that he was made to thumb mark the aforesaid documents Exhibits P. A.P. B. and P.C. by Dr. M. L. Tandon is not acceptable because if it were so, the respondent must have made some report or complaint to the authorities superior to Dr. M. L. Tandon and Shri Kewal Krishan or even to the Magistrate concerned before his prosecution. He did not do so. As indicated above, no question, suggesting that Munshi Ram, Faqir Chand and Rasila Ram D. Ws, or any one of them was present at the time of taking of sample of milk was put to Shri Kewal Krishan or Dr. M. L. Tandon during cross-examination. Even the names of the aforesaid witnesses were not disclosed by the respondent in his statement under Section 342 Criminal P.C. I am. therefore, not satisfied that they (the aforesaid D. Ws.) were, in fact, present at the time when sample of the milk was taken from the premises of the respondent. The offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is grave one and the punishment provided for the same is deterrent. Therefore, it is no wonder that the respondent could prevail upon the aforesaid D. Ws, and had secured statements from them favourable to him. The defence version is of usual type and appears to have been put forth under the strain of necessity being convenient, and not because there is any truth in it, Under the circumstances of the case, as soon as it is held, as I do. that none out of Munshi Ram. Faqir Chand or Rasila Ram was present at the time when Shri Kewal Krishan had taken milk by way of sample from the premises of the respondent, the defence version falls to the ground, and I have no hesitation in rejecting the same as false. It may be noted that even the defence version reads consistent with the prosecution case that milk of the sample was taken from the premises of the respondent. Now even if the defence version that the respondent was not present at the time of the taking of the sample and his servant was present there at that time is taken to be correct for the sake of argument though not conceding it to be correct it would render no assistance to the respondent, because the respondent was responsible as employer, for the act of his servant in selling or exposing the adulterated milk for sale as pure article. The provisions of Sections 7. 16 and 19 of the Act which are relevant for the purpose read as under:

In Lakshmi Narain's case, supra, Dharam Chand who was admittedly one of the witnesses regarding the taking of the sample, had negatived the prosecution case. He maintained that no formalin was added to the milk of the sample in his presence nor any bottle containing sample of milk had been handed over to Lakshmi Narain. The statements of Dr. Bakhshish Singh and Shri J. S. Dhameeja, Executive Magistrate, who were the other witnesses regarding taking of sample of the milk were contradictory on material points casting doubt about the taking of sample of milk from the can of Lakshmi Narain. The statement of Shri J. S. Dhameeja was found inconsistent with the statements of other witnesses viz. Dr. Bakhshish Singh and Shri Roshan Singh (Food Inspector) with regard to presence of the other witnesses viz. Dharam Chand and Gurdas Ram. when sample of milk had been taken. Then there was no evidence that the sample of the milk was representative one or that the milk had been properly stirred before sample had been taken from it.

In Kanshi Ram's case, supra. Ram Chand who was the attesting witness of taking of the sample was a milk vendor and as such he was under the influence of the Food Inspector (Shri Dharam Pal). Then the statements of Ram Chandar and Dharam Pal were discrepant respecting the appearance of other persons including Babu Ram when the sample of the milk had been taken. In Ram Pal's case supra, no witness other than Shri R. B. Survaria. Food Inspector, had been examined. Although he (Shri Survaria) admitted that several persons were Present when sample of the milk had been taken but he did not associate anyone of them while taking sample of the milk. The only witness who attested the taking of sample of milk was Sat Pal. He (Sat Pal) himself was a milk-vendor and his shop had been raided a few months earlier and he had not been prosecuted. So he could not be said to be independent witness and then he too was not examined in the aforesaid case.

In the case in hand, as pointed out above, the fact of taking of sample of the milk from the premises of the respondent is undisputed and the presence of Dr. M. L. Tandon at that time is not challenged. He is a respectable and responsible witness being public servant of the status of medical officer. There is nothing in the record not even a suggestion to show that he had any motive or cause to make false statement against the respondent. His statement reads consistent with the statement of Shri Kewal Krishan and suffers from no infirmity which can cast any adverse reflection on his credibility. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in concluding that he (Dr. M. L. Tandon) was independent and respectable witness, and in the circumstances of the case it would be wrong to say that he was not independent witness simply because he enjoyed the powers of Food Inspector being Medical Officer posted as in charge of Primary Health Centre. Gharota. It is in evidence that besides that Dr. M. L. Tandon attested the taking of sample of milk from the respondent. Surrinder Kumar. Sanitary Inspector, and Mohinder had also been joined by Shri Kewal Krishan when he took sample of the milk.