DEVIDEEN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Food Inspector had purchased the sample of milk from the applicants-accused on 2-10-1979. The public Analyst found the same to be below the prescribed standard, and as such, adulterated. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, in the matter of the prosecution, launched against the applicant-accused, convicted and sentenced him to the extent, as stated at the outset. Appeal, preferred against the same, was dismissed. Hence, now, the present revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant-accused has pressed before me the solitary legal point (which here before has never been canvassed in the Courts below) that the prosecution and conviction of the applicant-accused were completely vitiated, in as much as Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was violated. The nature of violation, urged is that although Rule 9-A abid contemplates that (Local) Health Authority shall immediately, after the institution of the prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis either by registered post or by hand but in this case, the compliance of this mandatory provision is not found to have been made and the copy of the report is found to have been furnished, several days after the institution of the prosecution.

(3.) The complaint for prosecution of the applicant-accused had been filed on 23-11-1979. Before the filing of this complaint, the applicant-accused was served with the notice dated 21-11-1979 (Ex. P 10), i.e. two days prior to the filing of the complaint, to the effect that as per the Public Analyst's report, the sample of milk was found to be adulterated and that, accordingly, the complaint for prosecution against him was purported to be filed in the Court of the C.J.M., Chhatarpur on 23-11-1979. Copy of the Public Analyst's report alongwith the covering memo is proved to have been received by the applicant-accused under registered post A.D. on 6-12-1979, as is evident from the postal acknowledgement (Ex. P-12) and the copy of the covering memo (Ex. P-11), on record of the trial Court.