- (1.) B. P. Singh, J. The applicant, Jagdish was prosecuted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in the trial the learned Magistrate held that, the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged and consequently the accused was sentenced to one year's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500. 00.
(2.) JAGDISH went to appeal and his appeal Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1989 was dismissed by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad on 15. 12. 89. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Appellate Court, JAGDISH has come in revision. The case of the prosecution was that on 13. 9. 86 Chief Food Inspector, Sri Daulat Ram, purchased 1 Kg. Jalebi from the Sweet shop of the accused, Jagdish, divided the Jalebi in three parts and sealed the same on the spot in the presence of witnesses. The Jalebi was prepared by Jagdish by using Vanaspati Oil. On 18. 9. 86 one sample was sent to the expert at Lucknow. The report of the expert deated 27. 10. 86 was that there was adulteration in the sample in question. The report was received in the office of the C. M. O. Fatehgarh and on 10. 6. 87 the C. M. O. Fatehgarh sent a copy of the complaint alongwith a copy of the report dated 27. 10. 86 to the accused as provided under Section 13 (2) of the Act. The accused did not avail of the opportunity which was available to him under the law by making application to the Court for sending the Second sample to the National Chemical Laboratory, Calcutta for examination. At the trial court the prosecution had examined Daulat Ram, P. W. 1 and had also relied upon the report of the expert.
(3.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that he was deprived of his right under Section 13 (2) of the Act due to the delay on the part of the authorities concerned in sending the copy of the report to the accused. THE argument has force. As I have already observed, the sample was taken on 18th September, 1986 and the copy of the expert report was sent to the accused on 10. 6. 87. It is significant to note that the report of the expert is dated 27th October, 1986 and it was received in the office of the C. M. O. , Fatehgarh sometime in March 1987 as is clear from the fact that there is an endorsement of C. M. O. upon this report and the said endorsement is dated 27. 3. 87. The right granted to the accused under Section 13 (2) of the Act is very valuable. The local health authorities is bound to send a copy of the report of the result of the analyis to the accused informing him that he, is so desired, could make an application to the Court within a week to send the second sample for fresh examination by the experts. In case the accused is deprived of this right due to the laches or short comings on the part of the authorities concerned including local authority, no conviction of an accused can be sustained. It is no doubt true that the accused did not apply to the court for sending the second sample for analysis even after the service of the notice dated 10. 6. 87, but it may be noted here that there is no evidence on record to indicate that any preservative was added to the three samples by the Chief Food Inspector on 18. 9. 86. Nothing useful and productive would have been achieved if the accused had applied for sending the second sample for analysis because after a gap of about nine months the samples of Jalebi must have decomposed and must have become unfit for analysis.;