Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Hanif, said that there is no such law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need corroboration from independent witnesses. His evidence is to be tested on its own merits and if found acceptable the Court Would be entitled to accept and rely on to prove prosecution case."

20. Seen in the light of the aforementioned judgments, there is merit in the contention of the Respondent that in the facts of this case, non- compliance of Section 10(7) cannot be ignored. PW-1 K.G. Rao, under whose supervision sample was lifted confirmed in his cross-examination that before inspecting the food articles neither he nor the FI tried to associate public witnesses. PW-2 FI S.P. Singh also confirmed in his cross- examination that no efforts were made to call public witnesses before inspection of the shop. In light of these testimonies, Trial Court rendered a finding that there was non-compliance of Section 10(7). As noted above, Section 10(7) is a safeguarding provision to ensure that the process of sample collection is fair as that forms the basis of the prosecution case and ultimately the conviction or acquittal of an accused. The provision is mandatory to the extent that the FI shall have to make an earnest effort to join independent witnesses. If the attempt is made and the witness does not join, FI cannot be blamed. But where no such attempt is made, it is a violation of Section 10(7) which assumes significance due to the reason that proceedings by the FI may get authenticity during trial and prosecution version may be believed. Importance of Section 10(7), a safeguarding provision meant to ensure fairness in sampling procedure, becomes pronounced in a case like the present where the allegation of causing obstruction in performance of duty is premised on an alleged physical act of pushing the FI. Prosecution witnesses deposed that Respondent pushed PW-2 out of the shop while the Respondent categorically denied the same. An independent witness would have corroborated the version of either side. Moreover, the Trial Court doubted the prosecution case as there was no explanation why police assistance was not taken to collect the sample when the raiding team had gone to the nearby police station to lodge a complaint. It was not the case of the prosecution that the dal or other suspected food articles were thrown away or the shop was closed and it cannot be overlooked that there were 2 other members in the raiding team, who were admittedly not prevented from taking the sample and yet no samples were taken. Court finds no reason to interfere in the finding of the Trial Court that there is non-compliance of provision of Section 10(7) of PFA Act in the given facts of the case. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Punni and Others, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 372, the Supreme Court observed that if two views are reasonably possible, Appellate Court would not normally interfere in the acquittal.