J.N. Takru, J. - (1.) DIWAN Singh has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 600/ - , in default 3 months' further R.I. Under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) THE conviction of the Applicant is based upon the following findings: (1) That on 3 -5 -1963 at about 11 -30 a.m. he was found exposing milk for sale, (2) that PW M.C. Kalra, a Food Inspector, took sample of that milk after paying its price, (3) that the said sample was divided in three portions and one portion of it was given to the Applicant, (4) that one of the said samples was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and his report showed that it was deficient in non -fatty solids by about 14, and, (5) that the Applicant's defence that the milk from which the sample was taken was pure and not adulterated was false. On behalf of the Applicant the only point argued before me was that as there was an inordinate delay in the launching of the Applicant's prosecution he was greatly prejudiced in his defence inasmuch as he could not get the sample of milk analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Applicant I am satisfied that this contention has no force.
(3.) NOW as stated above, the sample of the milk was taken on 3 -5 -1963. The record shows that the milk was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst UP and it was analysed by him on 30 -5 -1963. The date on which the instant complaint was filed can not be ascertained from the record, but the first order summoning the Applicant is dated 3 -1 -1964. It is obvious, therefore, that the complaint must have been filed on or sometime before that date. The Applicant appeared in Court for the first time on 15 -2 -1964, but he did not apply for the sample to be sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis till 30 -11 -1964. However when he applied for the analysis, the sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for that purpose. The Director carried out the analysis on 20 -12 -1964, though he prepared his report on 11 -1 -1965. That report also showed that the sample was adulterated, and that the milk solids other than milk fat were only 85. From the sequence of dates and events stated above, it is clear that the Applicant could have asked for the analysis of the sample by the Director, Central Food Laboratory Calcutta as early as 15 -2 -1964, but he did not do so till about nine and a half months later. In these circumstances it is futile for him to contend that he was prejudiced on account of the delay in the launching of the prosecution against him. However, even if there was some delay, it has not caused any prejudice to the Applicant as the reports, both of the Public Analyst UP, and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, show - -the former explicitly and the latter impliedly - -that no change had taken place in the constituents of the milk which would have interfered with the analysis, and that the sample was adulterated. Under Section 13(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while it is open to the Court to accept or reject the report of the Public Analyst UP it has no such option in the case of the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, the contents of which the courts have to accept as correct for all purposes under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As that report also shows that the sample was adulterated and was deficient in fatty solids, and there has been no prejudice to the Applicant, he has been rightly convicted for exposing adulterated milk for sale.;