STATE OF U. P. versus HANIF

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 31-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF U. P. 
A 
v. 
HANIF 
MARCH 31, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 8-Appointments 
of Public Analysts by notifications dated 23.6.1972 and 15.2.1975-Legality 
of-Report of the Public Analyst appointed for the State under earlier notifica-
tion-Validity of-Whether the Public Analyst appointed for the State has C 
jurisdiction over g local area. 
'r«~ ~ 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-Appreciation of evidence-Evidence of 
Food lnspecto~-Legality of-Whether needs co"oboration. 
Constitution of India, 
1950-Article 136-Appeal by special D 
leave-Contention not raised before the lower courts whether can be raised 
before the Supreme Court-Sentence imposed minimum-Whether the 
Supreme Court can interfere. 
The trial Court convicted the respondent for an offence under s.7 
read with s.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and E 
).--
sentenced him to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay a tine -or Rs. 1000 with 
usual default clause. 
--\ 
I 
On appeal, the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sen· 
tence. 
On revision, the High Court set aside the conviction on the ground 
that Public Analyst had no jurisdiction to analyse the food article. 
This appeal by special leave was filed against the Judgment of the 
High Court. 
F 
G 
The respondent-accused contended that by the notification dated 
February 15, 1975, the State Govt. assigned the local area to one B.S. Garg, 
Public Analyst; that by necessary implication one Dr. S.B. Singh ceased to 
have jurisdiction over that local area and thereby his report of analyst was 
without jurisdiction; that the prosecution based thereon and the conviction H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992} 2 S.C.R. 
A resulted pursuant thereto was without jurisdiction and a nullity; that 
except the Food Inspector no one was examined to corroborate bis • 
evidence; that the Food Inspector, being interested party, his evidence 
needed corroboration for acceptance; and that it was not safe to act upon 
the interested evidence of the Food Inspector. 
B 
c 
D 
Allowing the appeal filed by the State, this Court, 
HELD : 1.01. The notification dated Feb. 15, 1975 is only in con· 
tinuation of the notiiication dated June 23, 1972, not in supersession 
thereof. When Shri B.S. Garg, Asstt. Public Analyst was appointed as a 
Public Analyst to Varanasi and Allahabad Region under notification dated 
Feb. 15, 1975, it was not in supersession of the notification dated June 23, 
1972, appointing Dr. S.B. Singh as Public Analyst for the whole of Uttar 
Pradesh State. The later notification was in addition to the earlier notifica-
tion. [375G] 
1.02. S. 8 postulates appointment of more than one Public Analyst for 
such local areas as may be assigned to them by the Central or State Govt., as 
the case may be. Thereby it is open to the State Govt. to appoint more than 
one Public Analyst to any local area or areas and both would co-exist to have 
power and jurisdiction to analyse an article or articles of food covered 
E 
under the Act to find whether the same is adulterated. [376A·B] 
1.03. In addition to Dr. S.B. Singh, who was appointed as hblic 
Analyst for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh as one Single local area 
for the purpose of the Act, Shri B.S. Garg, Asstt., Public Analyst, was 
F appointed as Public Analyst for Varanasi and Allahabad region, compriss 
ing of certain districts which shall be deemed to be one single local area 
for the purpose of the . Act. Thereby both the officers have power and 
jurisdiction to analyse articles of food covered under the Act and submit 
a report in that behalf to the local authorities or the Inspector of Food, as 
G the case may be, to take appropriate action under the Act, based on the 
result of the report. [376B-D] 
1.04. The report sent by Dr. S.B.Singh is perfectly within his juris· 
diction and the trial b~sed on. the l"!!POrt and conviction ~orded by the 
trial court and affirmed by the Sessions Court is not vitiated by any error 
H of law or jurisdiction. [376D·E] 
----
-·~ 
STATE v. HANIF [RAMASWAMY, J.J 
373 
2. 
It _is not the law that the evidence of Food Inspector must A 
necessaril.r. need corroboration from independent witnesses. The evidence 
of the Food Inspector is not inherently suspected, nor be rejected on that 
ground. He discharges the public funcl:ion in purchasing an artide of food 
for analysis and if the article of food so p1rr.hased in the manner

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