H.N.Seth, J. - (1.) Being of opinion that the decision of Harkauli, J. in criminal revision 1952(or 1953) of 1978 Gaya Prasad v. State -and that of J. P. Chaturvedi, J. in the case of Hanif v. State of U. P. Criminal Revision 1504 of 1980, decided on 2-2-1981' require reconsideration, Bakshi, J. has referred two questions arising in this revision application for decision by a larger Bench. This is how the case has been put up for orders before us.
(2.) The first question relates to Section 11(1)(c, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which runs thus: When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall (a) & (b).... (c)(i) send one of the parts for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority; and (ii) send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purposes of Sub-section (2) of this section and Sub-section (2-A) and (2-E) of Section 13. (2) .... (3) when a sample of any article of food or adulterant is taken under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 10, the Food Inspector shall, by the immediately succeeding working day, send a sample of the article of food or adulterant or both, as the case may be in accordance with the rules prescribed for sampling to the Public Analyst, for the local area concerned.... and it arises in circumstances mentioned below.
(3.) On 17th of Oct. 1977 Food Inspector collected samples of cow milk which according to the prosecution was being sold by accused Gajraj. He sent two parts of the samples taken by him from Gajraj to the local Health Authority, in accordance with law. But one part of the sample was not directly taken to the Post Office for being despatched to the Public Analyst for analysis. Instead, it was deposited in the office of Nagar Swastha Adhikari on that very day and was eventually despatched for analysis by a Public Analyst on 19th of Oct. 1977.;