Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) The applicant was convicted by the trial court under Section 7/16(l)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of six months. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1100/- and in default of payment thereof to serve further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. His conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has contended that in the instant case there was admittedly non-compliance with the requirements of R.I. 9(J)of the Rules framed under the U. P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and consequently the conviction of the applicant was unsustainable. The sample of milk which was found to have been adulterated was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant on the 3rd May, 1974. A portion of it as required by law was sent for analysis and report to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector on or before 16th September, 1974. It has been found by the court below that a copy of the report was dispatched to the applicant on the 1 the October, 1974. R.I. 9(J) of the Rules is in the following term:- "It shall be the duty of the food inspector (j) to send by registered post, a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in case the sample conforms to the provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder, then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent." The Public Analyst's report was according to the finding recorded by the court below sent to the applicant after the time provided for in R.I. 9(J) had expired. Hon. J. M. L. Sinha, J. in Puttu Lal v. State 1980 (1) FAC 327 has taken the view that no conviction can be recorded against an accused in a trial for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act if there has been non-compliance with R.I. 9(J) of the Rules. The contention that has been raised before me was repelled by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that in 1972 Supreme Court Criminal Rulings, page 491 Supreme Court had taken the view that if an accused did not apply for sending his part of the sample for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and that when it has not been shown that any prejudice has been caused to him in his defence by non-compliance of any technical provision, the appellant was not entitled to an acquittal. In view of the clear decision of this Court by a learned Single Judge to which I am bound this revision must succeed. The Supreme Court decision relied upon by the court below was not concerned with R.I. 9(J) which was the subject matter of consideration in the above mentioned decision.
(3.) For the reasons given this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence of which he was charged. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. Fine, if realised from him shall be refunded to him. Revision allowed.;