- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at length and the learned AGA.
(2.) PERUSED the impugned judgment and order passed in criminal appeal No. 65 of 1981 by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur dated 28-7-1983. Also perused the trial court judgment and other materials on record the revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16pfaact and has been awarded sentence of six months RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default one month SI. The learned counsel has assailed the conviction on three counts- (1) that the provisions of Section 13 (2) PFA Act have not been fully com plied with, (2) the sanction was not granted by the competent authority in proper way and (3) that there was long delay in analysis by the Public Analyst after taking of sample of the item and the prosecution was also launched after long delay, son the presence of extraneous materials in the sample is possible due to delay. The admitted position is that the prosecution was launched on 20-9-1977 but the report of the Public Analyst finding adulteration was sent on 3-9-1977 (1) itself i e. prior to launching of the prosecution. The provi sions of Section 13 (2) requires that the copy of report of Public Analyst will be sent to the concerned person from whom sample was taken after the institution of prosecution. In this way the technical objection is quite forceful. But this aspect is also material that the purpose of sending the copy of the Public Analyst report as disclosed by the later portion of Sec tion 13 (2) is to enable the accused to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory. The learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that the name of the court before whom the prosecution was launched against the accused is to be noted in the notice sent to the accused which in the present case since the copy was sent prior to the launching of the prosecu tion could not have been noted so prejudice is without any dispute. This point to cause prejudice will be relevant when the accused takes plea that he could not get the sample examined by Central Food Laboratory only because he could not get information where his prosecution is launched. It is a question of fact which has to be judged on the basis of the materials brought on record. The main purpose of the mandatory provisions of under Section 13 (2) is to get the accused informed about the result of the analysis and to give him an opportunity to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory if he so desires. It is difficult to agree on this point that simply because the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent few days prior to the launching of the prosecution so the whole case will fail. The main object is to be taken into consideration. In the pre sent case there is no such plea that the accused wanted to get the sample examined by Central Food Laboratory but he could not do so because he could not get knowledge of the court where his prosecution was going on. So it is not a case in which any prejudice has been caused to the revisionist on that court.
(3.) THE observations made by the courts below on the point of sanc tion are very satisfactory. THE argument of the learned counsel that the details of the papers perused by the sanctioning authority should be noted in the sanction order is not disclosed by the discussions in the impugned judgment, but it is noted that the Food Inspector had sent his report along-with other papers and sanction was granted after studying all those papers. So the application of mind by sanctioning authority is clear that he is studied all papers which were sent by the Food Inspector along with his report. So there is no force in the argument on this count. So far the third point is concerned there is practically no delay in the case. THE sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst only next day of the taking of the sample and the prosecution was also launched only 9 months later after observing all formalities. THE report of the Public Analyst dated 7-2-1977 cannot be said delayed well within 90 days of the taking of the sample report was submitted. Thus this argument has no force. The report of the Public Analyst and the evidence on record clearly suggests that the sample of 'zeera' was adulterated containing extraneous materials beyond prescribed standard. So the conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 PFA Act is not unjustified to deserve inter ference.;