BABU LAL HARGOVINDAS versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 18-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BABU LAL HARGOVINDAS 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
March 18, 1971. 
1G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Food Adulteration A.ct, 1954-Panch wit1u•ss adr11itting signatur<s b111 
denying pre.rence at tinJe of recovery ()/ st111iple-Evidence of Food /uspef-
tor carr be relied upofJ and s. 10(7) of A.ct niust be taken as compJ!ed wUh 
-Resolution of Mu.nicipal Corporation under s. 20(1) of Act authorising 
Medical Officer of Health to give written consent for p>'osecution under 
A.ct-1\'ot necessary that authorisation should be by Co1n111issioner-J::.'fject 
of ss. 67(3) and 68(l}-Coniplai11t need not be in the 11a1ne of Corpora-
tio11-R11/c 7(2) does not contravene ss. 13(1) and 23(1) (e) of Act anti is 
not ultra vires. 
1'he appellant was a dealer in milk. The Food Inspector purchased 
milk fron1 him for analysis and sealed it in three bottles one of whi~h was 
lclt with the dealer and one sent for analysis, the third being kept by the 
Inspector for production in court. The Public Analyst's report sho,ved that 
he had caused the sample to be analysed and that there was a deficiency 
of non-fatty solids in the san1ple. With the written consent of the I\.·1edical 
Officer of Health the Inspector filed a complaint under s. 16 of the Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954. Before the Magistrate the witness of the recovery 
of the sample admitted his signatures on the receipt fu. 5 and on the 
wrappers and labels of the bottles in \vhich the sample was "lealed but 
denied that he was present when the sample was obtained. He claimed 
that be had signed Ex 5 without reading it. The Magistrate relying oa 
the testimony of the Food Inspector convicted the appellant. The High 
-Court confirmed the conviction. Witb certificate under Art. 134(1) (c) of 
the Constitution appeal was filed in this Court. 
HELD: (I) Tho fact that tho panch witness refused lo support tho 
prosecution in regard to the recovery of milk from the appellant could 
not mean that s. 10(7) of the FoO<I Adulteration Act had not 1,een com· 
plied with. 
The evidence of tho Food Inspector alone if believed can 
be relied on for proving that the samples were taken as required liy law. 
At the most courts of fact may find it difficult in any particular case to 
rely on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone though this result does 
.not necessarily follow. The circumstances of each case will determine the 
.,xtent of the weight to be given to tho evidence of tho Food Inspector and 
what in tho opinion of !ho Court is tho value of his testimony. 
In the 
present case the courts were justified in concluding on the evidence of the 
Food Inspector that he had complied with the requirements and that the 
samples were seized in the presence. of the Pan ch witnes~ whose 11ignaturcs 
were taken in the presence of the accused. [57E-58C) 
Mank~ Hari v. State of Gujarat, 8 G.L.R. 588, referred to. 
(ii) The appellant bad made no application to the Court for sending 
the sample in his custody to tho Director, Central Food Laboratory under 
'S. 13(2). It did not therefore avail him to say that over four montho 
'had elapsed from tho time tho samples were taken to the time when the 
.:omplaint was filed and consequently tho sample had deteriorated and 
53 
A 
B 
D 
E 
1! 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971) SUPP. S.O.L. 
A 
could not be analysed. The food Inspector h~d added a preservative to 
the appellant's sample and therefore the decision of this Court in G l1isa 
Ram's case was distinguishable. [580, G] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
G 
H 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 1\6, 
distinguished. 
(iii) The contention that the Medical Officer of Health was n.1t duly 
authorised under s. 20(1) of the Act to give hi• consent for the appellant's 
prosecution could not be accepted. The authority had been conferred by 
a resolution of the Municipal Corporation in this regard. The Corpora-
tion did not for this purpose have to act through the Commissioner. A 
combined reading of ss. 67(3) and 68(1) of the Act clearly indicatea that 
the Commissioner cannot exercise his functions without any fetters as if. 
he is the Coporation. The Corporation is the controlling authority and 
can restrict; limit or impose conditions on the Commissioner in the exer .. 
cise of any of the powers under s. 67(3) or under s. 68(1). The Corpora· 
tion has the final voice in determining whether the Coinmig.,ioner or any 
other person will discharge the function envisaged therein. Tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.