CASE BRIEF: STATE v. SADHU SINGH, 1961 SCC OnLine Punj 66

 

CASE NAME	State v. Sadhu Singh, 1961 SCC OnLine Punj 66
CITATION	ILR (1961) 2 P&H 803, AIR 1962 P&H 548, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 779, (1981) 1 FAC 406
COURT	Punjab Haryana High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Gurdev Singh and Justice Shamsher Bahadur
APPELLANT	State
RESPONDENT	Sadhu Singh
DECIDED ON	29th March 1961

INTRODUCTION

The State vs. Sadhu Singh, ruled on March 29, 1961, by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, involves the prosecution of milk-seller Sadhu Singh under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The charge was for selling contaminated buffalo milk with low fat and solids. Sadhu Singh testified that the Food Inspector violated the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by taking the sample without his consent and not having two independent witnesses present. The trial court convicted Sadhu Singh on the evidence. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, acquitted Sadhu Singh because the Food Inspector violated Act procedural protections. The High Court reviewed this acquittal after the State appealed. In food adulteration cases, the High Court stressed the need to follow procedural safeguards to avoid acquittal. The court stressed that Food Inspectors must follow the law to protect the prosecution process.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent, Sadhu Singh, was selling buffalo milk in Bhatinda City when Y. R. Malhotra, the Food Inspector, seized a sample on February 6, 1959. The Public Analyst received one of three sample portions in a sealed bottle. The analyst reported (Exhibit P. E.) that the sample was contaminated with skimmed milk and water because it lacked 46% of the minimum milk fat and 19% of the milk solids. Thus, Sadhu Singh was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and it was alleged that he had been convicted for a similar offense on October 6, 1958, by a Magistrate First Class of Bhatinda and fined Rs. 100. Sadhu Singh denied guilt.  He admitted that the Food Inspector, Y. R. Malhotra, took 3/4th Seer of buffalo milk from him on the morning of February 6, 1959, but he complained that the sample was taken in a garvi, no payment was made, and one of the triplicate samples was never given to him. At trial, it was argued that the Food Inspector violated Sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by not taking the sample in the presence of two respectable locals and that the conviction was bad in accordance with In re Raju Konar, AIR 1959 Mad 118. Based on the evidence of the Food Inspector, Y. R. Malhotra, P.W. 1, Raunaq Ram, P.W. 2, and Hans Raj, P.W. 3, whose signatures appeared on the memo, Exhibit P. C., the learned Magistrate found no violation of Sub-section (7) of Section 10 and Sub-section 1(a) of that Section of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because the Food Inspector took the sample in the presence of Raunaq Ram.  He found Sadhu Singh guilty under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, rejecting the defense. Based on Sub-Section (2) of that Section and Sadhu Singh's admission that he had been previously convicted, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 2000 fine, the minimum sentence for a previous offender. Sadhu Singh was imprisoned for six months for not paying his fine.  Sadhu Singh appealed to the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who disagreed with the trial Court and held that the memo Exhibit P. C., upon which the learned Magistrate relied, was prepared under Section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore did not prove that Section 10(1)(a) and 10(7) had been complied with. He believed that Exhibit P. D., the memo made at the time of the sample, violated Sub-section (7) of Section 10 because it did not bear the signatures of two witnesses who were supposed to have been there. The learned Sessions Judge accepted Sadhu Singh's appeal and acquitted him, ruling that Sub-Section (7) of Section 10 was mandatory and had been flagrantly violated. This order was appealed by the State.

ISSUES RAISED

• Subsection (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: required or directory?
• The Food Inspector's inability to follow the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act's procedures invalidates the prosecution.
• Was Sadhu Singh's conviction justifiable despite sampling irregularities?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• The learned Assistant Advocate General claims no breach of Section (10) sub-section (7). 
• He uses the oral testimony of the Food Inspector, Y. R. Malhotra, P.W. 1, Raunaq Ram, P.W. 2, and Hans Raj, P.W. 3, Vaccination Inspector, and Exhibits P. B., P. C., and P. D., prepared by the Food Inspector after taking the sample from the respondent. Raunaq Ram and Vaccination Inspector Hans Raj P. Ws. Supported the Food Inspector Shri Y. R. Malhotra's claim that they witnessed the respondent's milk sample, but their signatures are only on Exhibit P. C.; none of them signed Exhibit P. D., and P.W. Raunaq Ram attested Exhibit P. B.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The defense claimed the Food Inspector violated the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act's procedural protections, specifically the requirement for two independent witnesses during sampling. They claimed this non-compliance invalidated the prosecution's case.
• Some claim Sadhu Singh was not paid for the milk sample, which was taken without his consent. The defense claimed this omission violated the statute and tainted the sample collection.
• The defense questioned the Public Analyst's assessment, arguing that the evidence wasn't enough to prove the milk was contaminated. They questioned the analysis's accuracy and methodology.

JUDGMENT

Raunaq Ram P.W. 2 and Hans Raj P.W. 3's sample-taking evidence is unconvincing. Raunaq Ram, a milk seller, was also arrested at the crossing, but he was held as a witness against the respondent instead of being sampled. Hans Raj P.W. reports to the Food Inspector. When the law requires that the sample be obtained in the presence of two people, it anticipates that the evidence must be honest and that the witnesses should be independent and disinterested to inspire confidence. In this case, the Food Inspector influenced both sample-taking witnesses. There were likely several independent witnesses when the respondent was apprehended and the sample was obtained, but none was taken into confidence or requested to witness the sample taking. This behavior of the Food Inspector casts doubt on his credibility, and the fact that he failed to prepare the memo under Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act casts doubt on the prosecution case. In this case, Exhibit P. C. and the other documents were written up contemporaneously in front of the two witnesses, however sub-section (7) of Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not followed. Full compliance with the Act's requirements is important due to its severe penalties. After discussing all other issues of the case, the Court agreed. Rejected appeal

CONCLUSION

The State vs. Sadhu Singh (1961) case was about accusations of selling buffalo milk that had been tampered with. The allegations were brought under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954. The prosecution's case was based on the findings of a public analyzer, which established that the milk sample taken from Sadhu Singh was not pure. The most important legal question throughout the trial was how the sample method was carried out. As stated in Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, two independent witnesses must be present during the sample collection. In this situation, the defense claimed that the sampling process did not follow the required procedures because the sample was gathered without independent witnesses. Section 10 of the Act describes the authority of a food inspector, who is in charge of making sure that the food items sold to the public satisfy the necessary criteria. This provision requires certain procedural safeguards, such as having two independent witnesses present during the sample process. As was argued in this instance, if these protections are not followed, the evidence may be considered invalid. Sadhu Singh was initially found not guilty by the Sessions Judge because of the argument that the legal standards had been violated due to the mistakes made in the sample-collecting process. The case was then appealed to the High Court, which upheld the acquittal. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the established processes in cases of food adulteration, pointing out that failure to comply with these legal criteria is not something that can be ignored. This case's ruling emphasizes how crucial it is to follow procedures in both regulatory and criminal law. Charges can be dropped even if there is proof of tampering as long as the required legal procedures are not followed. In this case, the acquittal was the result of the failure to comply with Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which states that independent witnesses must be present during sample collection. This case strengthens the legal premise that following due process is necessary for maintaining justice and safeguarding people's rights, particularly in situations where there are violations of regulations. The verdict shows that if statutory processes are not followed, the fairness of a trial can be put in danger, regardless of how strong the evidence is.