Holding

The 1975 notification was in continuation, not supersession, of the 1972 notification; both public analysts retained concurrent jurisdiction, making Dr. S.B. Singh's report valid and the conviction proper.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh convicted Hanif under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated milk, sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Court but set aside by the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the report of Dr. S.B. Singh, the Public Analyst appointed in 1972 for the whole state, was beyond his jurisdiction after a 1975 notification appointed B.S. Garg as Public Analyst for the Varanasi‑Allahabad region. The Supreme Court held that the 1975 notification was merely in continuation of the 1972 one, not a supersession, and that Section 8 permits multiple public analysts to have concurrent jurisdiction over overlapping areas. Consequently, Dr. Singh's report was within his jurisdiction and the conviction stood. The Court also ruled that the evidence of the Food Inspector need not be corroborated unless contested, and that the minimum sentence imposed under the 1976 amendment did not warrant interference. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether the 1975 notification appointing B.S. Garg as Public Analyst superseded the 1972 notification appointing Dr. S.B. Singh, thereby removing Singh's jurisdiction over the Varanasi‑Allahabad area.
Whether Section 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act allows the appointment of more than one Public Analyst with overlapping jurisdictions.
Whether the evidence of the Food Inspector must be corroborated by independent witnesses.
Whether the minimum sentence prescribed by the Amending Act 34 of 1976 precludes appellate interference.
Whether a ground not raised before the Sessions Court can be raised before the Supreme Court on special leave.

Legislation cited

Amending Act 34 of 1976
Constitution of Indias. 136
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 3
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16, s. 7, s. 8

Subjects

Food adulterationPublic Analyst jurisdictionSection 8Evidence of Food InspectorMinimum sentenceSpecial leave petitionCriminal procedure

Judgment

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.

On appeal, the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sen·
tence.
F
On revision, the High Court set aside the conviction on the ground
that Public Analyst had no jurisdiction to analyse the food article.
--\ I

This appeal by special leave was filed against the Judgment of the
High Court.
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 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

c
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]
D
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
prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required to take·action B
as per law. He discharges public duty. 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. If in a given case where the factum
of the very purchase is put in question and any personal allegations are
made against the Food Inspector perhaps it may be necessary for the
prosecution to dispel the doubt and to examine the Panch witnesses C
seeking corroboration to the evidence of the Food Inspector. [376G-3778]
-·~
3.01. The contention that the evidence of Food Inspector must be
corroborated by independent evidence, was not raised, nor convassed
either l,>efore the Sessions Court or in the High Court. In this case the
factum of purchase by the Food Inspector was not disputed. Even in the D
appellate court, the contention raised was regarding the delay in sending
the public analyst report to the authority and laying the prosecution but
no other controversy was raised. Under these circumstances, there is no
substance in the contention. (3778-CJ
E
3.02. After Amending Act 34 of 1976, the sentence imposed by the
courts b~low is minimum and that, therefore, there is no scope warranting
interference. [377F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
~~~ F
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.1981 of the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Revision No. 1504 of 1980.

Vikrant Yadav, R.C. Verma and A.S. Pundir for the Appellant.
G
. Nadir Ali Khan, Arvind Kumar and Mrs. Laxmi Arvind for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. The respondent was convicted for an offence .H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A under s.7 read with s.16 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 37 of
1954, for short 'the Act', and was sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and
to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 with usual default clause. On appeal the Sessions
Court. confirmed the convictilm and sentence. But on revision the High
Court set aside the conviction solely on the ground that Dr. B. S. Singh,
Public Analyst, had no jurisdiction to analyse the food article. It was B.S.
B Garg, Public Analyst, Varanasi and Allahabad region, alone had the power.
Consequently the conviction on the basis of the report of Dr. S.B. Singh
that the milk was adulterated was held without jurisdiction and authority
of law. Accordingly the High Court acquitted the respondent by judgment
dated February 2, 198L This appeal by special leave arises against this
C judgment.

The main question .is whether Dr. S.B. Singh had jurisdiction over
the Allahabad area to analyse the articles of food. Section 8 of the Act
reads thus:

D 11
8. Public Analysts - The Central Government or the State
Govt. may by notification in t~e Official Gazette, appoint such
persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications to
be public analysts for such local areas as may be assigned to
them by the Central Government or the State Government, as
E the case may be :

Provided that no person who has any financial interest in the
manufacture, import or sale of any article of food shall be
appointed to be a public analyst under this section."

F In exercise of power under s.8, the Governor of U .P. by notification
published in the State Gazette dated June 23, 1972 appointed Dr. S.B.
Singh as a Public Analyst to Govt. for whole of Uttar Pradesh, thus :

"No. 2415(4)/CVI-X-112/71, Dated; Lucknow 23 June, 1972.
;t-
G In supersession of Govt. notification No. 2424(III) XVI-1-
59179, dated August 7, 1970 and in exercise of the powers under
Section 8 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(Act No. 37 of 1954), the Governor is pleased to appoint Dr.
S.B. Singh, M.Sc., Ph.d. as Public Analyst to Government for
H the whole of Uttar Pradesh, which shall be regarded as one
STATE v. HANIF [RAMASWAMY, J.] 375

single local area for the purpose of the said Act, with effect A
from the afternoon ofMarch 31, 1972."

Subsequently another notification dated February 15, 1975 was pub-
lished appointing Shri B.S. Garg as Public Analyst for Varanasi and
Allahabad Region, which reads thus :
B
"No. 570(l)XVl-X-1314/72

Lucknow dated : 15 February, 1975.

In continuation of Government Notification No.2415(4)/
XVI-X- 112/71 dated June 23, 1972 and in exercise of powers C
under Section 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 (Act No. 37 of 1954), the Governor is pleased to appoint
for the purposes of the said Act Sri B.S. Garg, Assistant Public
Analyst as Public Analyst to Government, Varanasi Region
(comprising Districts of Varanasi, Gazipur, Mirzapur, Jaunpur D
and Ballia) and Allahabad Region (comprising Districts of
Allahabad, Fatehpur, Kanpur, Farrukhabad and Etawah)
which shall be deemed as on·e single local area for the purpose
of the said Act with effect from the date of Publication of this
Notification in the Official Gazette."
E
The contention of the learned counsel for respondent which also
found favour with the High Court is that by the notification dated February
15, 1975, Varanasi and Al1ahal:>ad region is 'a local area' assigned by the
State Govt. in the Official Gazette to Shri B.S. Garg, Asstt. public Analyst
who was appointed as a Public Analyst to the State Govt. for that local F
area. By necessary implication Dr. S.B. Singh ceased to have jurisdiction
over that local area and thereby his report of analysis is without jurisdic-
tion. The prosecution based thereon and the conviction resulted pursuant
thereto is without jurisdiction and a nullity. We find no substance in the
contention. The notification dated Feb. 15, 1975 is only in continuation of
the notification dated June 23, 1972, not in supersession thereof. As a fact, G
the notification dated June 23, 1972 is in supersession of earlier notification
dated August 7, 1970. Therefore, 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 · H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992} 2 S.C.R.

A Analyst for the whole of Uttar Pradesh State. The later notification was in
addition to the earlier notification. On principle also, it is difficult to give
acceptance to the contention of the respondent for the reason that 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
B 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
under the Act to find whether the same is adulterated. Accordingly, we
hold that in addition to Dr. S. P. Singh, who was appointed as Public
Analyst for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh as one single local area
c for the purpose of the Act, Shri B.S. Garg, Asstt. Public Analyst, was
appointed as Public Analyst for Varanasi and Allahabad region comprising
of District of Varanasi, Gazipur, Mirzapur, Jaunpur and Ballia and Al-
lahabad region comprising of districts of Allahabad, Fatehpur, Kanpur,
Farrukhabad and Etawah, which shall be deemed to be one single local
D area for the purpose of the Act. Thereby both the officers have power and
jurisdiction of 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
the case may be, to take appropriate action under the Act, based on the
result of the report so submitted. Therefore, the report sent by Dr. S.B.
Singh is perfectly within his jurisdiction and the trial based on the report
E and conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Sessions
court is not vitiated by any error of law or jurisdiction. This was the only
point on which the High Court allowed the revision case and set aside the
conviction and sentence.

F The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that ex-
cept the Food Inspector no-one was examined to corroborate his evidence.
----
The Food Inspector, being interested party, his evidence needs corrobora-
tion for acceptance and that, therefore, it is not safe to act upon the
interested testimony of the Food Inspector. Apart from the fact that this
contention was not raised, nor convassed either before the Sessions Court
G nor in the High Court, we find no substance in the contention. It is not the
law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need corrobora-
tion from independent witnesses. The evidence of the Food Inspector is
not inherently suspected, nor be rejected on that ground. He discharges
the public function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the
H article of food so purchased in the manner prescribed under the Act is
STATE V, HANIF [RAMASWAMY, J.] 377
...
found adulterated, he is required to take action as per law. He discharges A
public duty. 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. If in a given case where the factum of the very purchase
is put in question and any personal allegations are made against the Food
Inspector, perhaps it may be necessary for the prosecution to dispel the
doubt and to examine the Panch witnesses seeking corroboration to the
B
evidence of the Food Inspector. In this case the factum of purchase by the
Food Inspector was not disputed. Even in the appellate court, the conten-
tion raised was regarding the delay in sending the public analyst report to
the authority and laying the prosecution, but no other controversy was
raised. Under these circumstances, we find no substance in the contention C
that the evidence of Food Inspector must be corroborated by independent
evidence.

It is next contended that what was purchased from the respondent
was a milk of the cow, but not the buffallo milk. Therefore, the sample
containing 5.8% fat, 7.3% non-fat solid is not an adulteration as prescribed D
under the rules. Thereby, it is not in adulterated article of food. This
question of fact was dealt with the Courts of fact. The trial court and the
Sessions Court found as a fact that what was purchased from the respon-
dent was she buffallo milk and not cow milk. This is a concurrent finding
of fact of both the courts below and this contention was not raised in the E
High Court. Being a factual finding, we do not propose to go into and
consider this co11tention .
..
1t is next contended that the sale of adulterated milk was on Decem·
ber 3, 1978 and that the long lapse of time is a cause to take a lenient view
in the matter. In view of the fact that after Amending Act 34 of 1976, the F
scrntence imposed by• the courts below is minimum and that, therefore,
there is no scope warranting interfetence.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court
is set aside and that of the trial court as affirmed by the Sessions Court is G
restored.

V.P.R. Appeal allowed.

-