Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Chandigarh, January 28
The sole testimony of a food safety officer (FSO) where it is reliable and inspires the confidence of the court can form the basis for conviction of the accused under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and there is no requirement that the testimony of the FSO should be corroborated by the testimony of an independent witness.
Observing this, a local court has convicted a shopkeeper, Shivpal Yadav, under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, for selling confectionery items such as ‘namkeen’, ‘rusk’ and biscuits for human consumption without having a food licence.
The court sentenced the convict to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and also told him to pay a fine of Rs 30,000. The court said in case of default of payment of fine, the convict will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The court has pronounced the judgment on a complaint filed by Bhaljinder Singh, Food Safety Officer, Health Department, Chandigarh Administration.
In the complaint, the Food Safety Officer said during an inspection on August 9, 2018, Shivpal was found preparing and selling cakes and patties for human consumption without a licence at his shop in Deep Complex, Hallo Majra.
By indulging in such act, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. On the basis of the available record, a notice of accusation was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Denying the charges, the counsel for the accused said he was falsely implicated in the case. He said a sole independent witness had not been examined.
In such circumstances, it was clear that no independent witness was associated at the time of challaning the accused.
He said neither any food sample nor raw material was taken into possession. The entire case had been falsely foisted upon the accused.
The additional public prosecutor argued that the sole testimony of the FSO could form the basis for conviction of the accused and there was no rule of law or prudence that such testimony should be corroborated by the testimony of any other witness. Since the accused was challaned for preparing and selling food articles without having a food licence, there was no requirement for taking sample of the food article.
After hearing the arguments, the court convicted the accused. The court said from the statement of the food safety officer, it was clearly established that on the date of inspection, he was found preparing and selling cakes and patties for human consumption and was also found selling confectionery items for human consumption without a licence.
The court said the FSO fully supported the prosecution case and his testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination on all material aspects. So, there is no reason to discredit his testimony.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any enmity or hostility of the FSO against the accused and as such, there was no reason for the officer to falsely implicate the accused in the instant case.
