- (1.) RAJESHWAR Singh, J. The learned Magistrate convicted the revisionist under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. On failure to pay fine, rigorous imprisonment for one more year was ordered. He filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Then he has come to this Court though this revision.
(2.) THE Food Inspector took sample of tobacco from the revisionist. It was sent to Public Analyst. He reported that the tobacco had been coloured by coaltar dye while use of colour was prohibited in case of tobacco. After necessary sanction the revisionist was prosecuted and he was found guilty for adulteration of tobacco as said earlier. The first argument that has been pressed on behalf of the revisionist is that the Food Inspector, who took sample, had no right to take the sample. The argument is developed by saying that Food Inspector says in his examination-in-chief that he was appointed at Primary Health Centre Katehri, and Darshan Nagar, wherefrom the sample was taken was not in Katehri Block, Both Katehri and Darshan Nagar are situated in the District of Faizabad and it is in the cross-examination or the Food Inspector that at the time of taking sample he was Inspector for the entire district of Faizabad. By "niyukti" at Katehri, the Inspector means posting. That was not for the purpose of division of work amongst the Inspectors but he was Food Inspector for the entire district. He could take sample anywhere in the district. It is also in his statement that the Chief Medical Officer has prepared a scheme for special checking and he being the inspector for the entire district was asked to take part in it. Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act says that the Inspector is appointed by Notification in the official Gazette. The Gazette can be available to any one. So the revisionist could have produced that Gazette or could have got it summoned from the department to show that the Inspec tor was not appointed for the entire district. It was not done. So the statement of Food Inspector that he was Inspector for the entire district and he could take sample anywhere in the district is to be accepted. Thus the first argument has no force. The second argument is that Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with inasmuch as the copy of report was not sent to the revisionist within the period allowed. In this case there is nothing to show that the revisionist made any request for sample being sent to Director and there is no report of the Director, that the report of the Public Analyst is incorrect and the tobacco was not coloured by the colour which could not be used. Unless an application to send the sample to Director is made, the accused cannot complain that he was deprived of his right given under Section 13 (2) of the Act and prejudice is caused to him. Ajit Prasad Raw Kishan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 2 SCC 180 : AIR 1972 SC 1631.
(3.) THE third argument is that the sample taken by the Inspector was not sent to Analyst but some other material was sent for analysis. This argument is elaborated by saying that in the printed receipt that has been given to the revisionist, it is printed that the sample was taken in three clean bottles, while in other papers and in evidence, it is said that the sample was taken in packets and packets were sent. So, it is argued that the bottle in which sample was taken, was not sent. In the printed receipt "bottles" is printed, because normally these samples may be taken in bottles ; but then throughout there is evidence that the sample was taken and sent in packets and on this point there is no cross- examination. So the evidence that sample was taken in packets and packets were sent, has to be accepted. THE revisionist cannot take, benefit of just this omission that in the printed receipt the word 'bottles' was not scored out. While dealing with the cases of Food Adultera tion, the Courts should keep in mind the future injury to be caused and should be slow to quash the prosecution on mere technical irregularities in procedures of directory nature. State of Punjab v. Devinder Kumar, (1983) 2 SCC 384: AIR 1983 SC 545. THErefore, I reject the argument of the revisionist. It has also been argued that sealed packets were not put in proper containers and there is no evidence that bottles were properly cleaned. Vio lation of Rule 14 has been alleged. The evidence of the Food Inspector is that according to rules, sample was taken and it was put in sealed packets. There is no cross-examination of this point. In the receipt that was given it was said that bottles were cleaned. Thus nothing has come on record to show that suitable containers were not used as required by Rule 14. In the case of Gopal Das Bahe v. State of Assam, 1979 FAJ 173 (2) (SC), sample of tea was taken and it was put in cloth sacs. The contention that the sealed sacs were not put in proper containers was raised before the Supreme Court for the first time. It was not allowed to be raised because there was nothing on record to show that sealed sac was not put in proper container as required by the rules. In the case before me, in evidence I do not find any thing that container used for sample was not proper and as pointed out earlier, there is no cross-examination on this point.;