Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954), S.8 - Public Analyst - Jurisdiction - It is not the law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily 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 function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the article of food so purchased in the manner prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required to take action 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 seeking corroboration to the evidence of the Food Inspector.

Where a person was appointed as Public Analyst for the entire State by a notification which was issued in supersession of earlier notifications and another person was appointed as Public Analyst for local area comprising certain districts of the State, the person who was appointed Analyst for the whole State would not cease to have jurisdiction over the local area for which another man was appointed. The later notification not being in supersession of earlier notifications would be in addition to the earlier one and both officers would have jurisdiction in respect of the local area. Moreover, on principle also, the result would not be that earlier appointee would lose jurisdiction over the local area for which appointment was made subsequently 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 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