S.K.Jain - (1.) ON 30.11.1979 sample of Lahi Ka Teil was purchased from the premises of the applicant by the Gove;rnment Food Inspector. ON analysis it was found to be contained Tisi oil to the extent of 75% and therefore, adulterated. The prosecution was launched. The applicant was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in the event of default in payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for nine months under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act." This judgment and order of February 11, 1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Hamirpur was challenged in criminal appeal No. 18/82, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur.
(2.) IT is that order of June 30, 1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, the legality whereof has been challenged in this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help have gone through the record of the rase. Firstly, learned counsel far the applicant has argued that the applicant was only an employee and therefore he was selling, if at all, the oil in question under the order of his employer, the owner of the mill, and therefore, he was not liable. This argument is without any force. The applicant was selling adulterated edible oil and therefore, he was guilty under the Act and in spite of his being servant of the owner could not escape his criminal liability under the Act.
(3.) SECOND submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to him at all he could not get the second part of the sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta as against the report of the Public Analyst. This argument also does not find favour with me in view of the fact that according to the register of the department vide entry dated 17.1.1981, the report was put in the course of registered postal transmission to the address of the applicant which is certainly due compliance of the rules. Thirdly, and lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that charge was framed on 30.9.81 and at that time the report was shown to the applicant for the first time. Then he moved an application for sending the second part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta but that application was declined and therefore, his case; had been highly prejudiced. This argument attractive at first sight, is, in my opinion, not tenable on the sound appreciation of the material on record. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is considered that the report of the Public Analyst was shown to the applicant for the first time on 30.9.81, he was required to move an application within ten days from that date under Section 13 (2) of the Act for getting the second part of the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Admittedly he moved such an application on 15.11.81, i.e. more than two months, after 30.9.81 when, according to him, the report of the Public Analyst was shown to him for the first time, the learned trial Magistrate had rightly rejected that application.;