THE STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SHRI ANUKUL CH. DEY AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
The State of Assam
Shri Anukul Ch. Dey And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
S. Haque, J -
(1.)THE State has impugned the judgment and order of acquittal dated 3.8.77 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gauhati in CR Case No. 511 of 1977. The two Respondents have faced the trial for the charges under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The allegation was that they sold adulterated Ghee on 24.8.76 to the Food Inspector.
(2.)THE Food Inspector took the sample of Ghee on 24.8.76 from M/s. Bably Restaurant situated at Dispur, Gauhati by observing the formalities. The public analyst opined that the sample of Ghee was adulterated on account of presence of 19.6% (approx.) of Vanaspati After obtaining requisite sanction, the Respondents were prosecuted. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. On perusal of evidence on record, the Magistrate came to the finding that the Ghee in question was not meant for sale. He acquitted the Respondents. We do not propose to scrutinise if too Magistrate bad duty appreciated the evidence, because we like to con -fine on law point.
The Respondents took the plea at the trial that the copy of the report of the result of the analysis was not served on them in compliance With the provision of Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act. The Food Inspector (P.W. 1) was cross examined on that point. He could not give satisfactory evidence to prove the fact of serving copy of the report on the Respondents. He could not produce the A/D receipt nor the postal receipt even to show that such report was posted to the Respondents. There is no material whatsoever In the out records the trial court to show that copy of such report was sent or served on the Respondents. The Magistrate did not touch this legal point In his judgment.
(3.)LEARNED Public Prosecutor Mr. N. Zaman submits that noncompliance of the provision under Section 13(2) is a technical error and the trial will not vitiate for the same. Learned Counsel Mr. D.K. Bhattacharjee for the Respondents submits that non -compliance of Section 13(2) caused serious prejudice to the Respondents and vitiated the trial. We cannot agree with the Public Prosecutor. There is force in the argument of Mr. Bhattacharjee.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.