SHIVCHARAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1992 passed by the Additional Session Judge of Sheopurkala, District Morena whereby the conviction of the applicant under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) of the Food Adulteration Act and sentence of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - awarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheopurkala, has been confirmed.

(2.) THE applicant was tried for having sold the adulterated milk of goat. Charges u/s 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) of the Food Adulteration Act were framed. Samples of the milk were taken and were sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst sent the report and found that the milk was adulterated. The report was proved on the record. The learned trial Court had examined the witnesses and found that the charges against the applicant under the aforesaid sections were proved and the applicant was accordingly convicted and sentenced. An appeal was preferred by the applicant which was also dismissed. Now, a technical objection has been raised at this stage by learned counsel for the applicant that the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 have not been complied. The learned counsel referred to the statement of P.W. 1 Bhagwansingh Tomar, the Food Inspector. In his statement, the Food Inspector · has stated on oath that he had sent the sample to the Public Analyst by registered post. But, the postal receipt was not produced on record and the same has not been proved. On this point the witness is silent. None of the witnesses has disclosed about the postal receipt which was obtained while sending the sample to the Public Analyst. The postal receipt did not see the light of the day and never came on record. In absence of the postal receipt the compliance of Rules 17 and 18 could not be said to have been made. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran reported in 1988 S.C.C. (Criminal) Vol. 47 at page 47. In that case, the Supreme Court has clearly held that once the postal receipt has been withheld, the compliance of Rules 17 and 18 could not be said to have been made.