BABU LAL HARGOVINDAS vs STATE OF GUJARAT

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, emphasizing that the evidence of the Food Inspector can be relied upon even if the panch witness denies presence during sample recovery, as per Section 10(7). The Court clarified that the Medical Officer of Health's written consent for prosecution under Section 20(1) was valid, and the complaint need not be in the name of the Corporation. The Court distinguished the case from Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, asserting that the sample's integrity was maintained with preservatives added by the Food Inspector.