R.B.Lal, J. - (1.) Mahavir son of Swarup Gir who has been convicted for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- has preferred this revision. The conviction and sentence imposed on him were up-held by the appellate court.
(2.) The Food Inspector took a sample of the milk of the applicant on 10th August, 1979 at Shamili Road within District Muzaffarnagar. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in fat content and nonfat solids content. The applicant raised a number of pleas before the trial court which it is not necessary to set out here. Inter alia, it was contended that the mandatory provisions of section 13(2) of the Act were not complied with. None of the contentions prevailed with the trial court.
(3.) Sri D.N. Wali, learned counsel for the applicant has made several submissions before me but 1 think that this revision can be disposed of on one of them. He has contended that there was no compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act which are mandatory. Sub-section (2) requires that after launching of prosecution, a copy of the report of the Public Analyst should be sent to the accused and he should further be informed that he can apply to the court concerned within ten days for re-analysis of sample by the Central Food Laboratory.;