S.S. Dewan, J. - (1.) This revision petition filed by Manohar Lal arises against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated Dec. 21, 1978 by which he dismissed his appeal and upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to six months, maintaining the sentence of fine with its default clause under Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak for the aforesaid offence and was convicted and sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner was that he found selling ice-candy lying in an ice-box on 10-6-1975. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of ice-candy from the petitioner for analysis and thereafter the same was divided into three parts and sealed each part in one clean and dry bottle properly in the presence of Dr. D. R. Yadav and Mool Chand, Peon. Later on, one of the sealed bottles containing the sample was sent to the public analyst who upon analysis found that the sample of ice-candy was sweetened with sccharine and did not contain sugar. The public analyst sent his report to the Food Inspector who then filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.
(3.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that rule9(j) of the Rules framed under the Act was not complied with. It reads as under:- "It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector to send by registered post, a copy of the report received in Form III from the public analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within 10 days of the receipt of the said report. However in case the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder, then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent.";