P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/- In default, he is directed to undergo further 3 months' R.I, His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi, hence this revision.
(2.) It appears that a sample of mixed buffalo and cow milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 6th December, 1079 in accordance with the formalities provided by law. One of the sample bottles was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report dated 8-1-1980 disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 6 per cent. After obtaining the requisite sanction a complaint was filed against the accused on 27th December, 1980, A copy of the report of the Public Analyst and the intimation as required under Section 3 (2) of the P. F. A. Act was sent to the accused on 29th January, 1981. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution produced Sri S. P. Gupta, the Food Inspector and Sri Alauddin An-sari Food Clerk Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi in support of its case. Both the courts below on a consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 7/16 of the P. F. A. Act was established against the accused,
(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant hag submitted that there has been considerable delay in the launching of the prosecution. The sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector on 6th December, 1979. The report and the intimation is alleged to have been despatched on 28th January, 1981. Thus about a year and 7 weeks had elapsed since the taking of the sample. Therefore, the sample of milk must have deteriorated and as such the applicant has been deprived of his right to get the sample reanalysed by the Director Central Food Laboratory. Admittedly on the appearance of the accused no application has been made by him for sending the sample for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Learned Counsel argued that since the sample must have deteriorated therefore, it was not necessary to file an application in court for sending the sample for reanalysis. His valuable right under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. has thus been infringed. The conviction of the applicant should therefore, be set aside.;