B.S.YADAV,J. - (1.) THE brief facts leading to the present petition are that on 7th October, 1976 at about 6 p.m., the present petitioner Harpal was found in the possession of 6 Kgs. of unindicated milk for sale. PW1 Shri S.K. Sharma Government Food Inspector disclose his identity to him and purchased 660 mls. of milk from him after observing due formalities. The sample was divided into three parts. Each part was put in a clean and dry bottle. 18 drops of formalise were added to each bottle. The sample bottles were properly stopped, labelled, wrapped and sealed in accordance with the relevant provisions. These proceedings were conducted by the Government Food Inspector in the presence of PW2 Dr. D.K. Saxena and one Jagdish Sarpanch. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst was found the same to be adulterated; inasmuch as milk fat was 38% deficient and milk solids not fat 12% deficient of the minimum prescribed standards. After the report of the Public Analyst, prosecution was launched against the petitioner. At the close of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he did not sell milk and the Government Food Inspector had obtained his signatures on blank printed papers.
(2.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the petitioner under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. It was also ordered that in default to payment of fine, the petitioner would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who maintained the conviction of the petitioner, but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to one year and fine to Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner has now come to this Court in revision.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case, there has been total violation of section 13(2) of the Act. The said provision reads as follows :- "13(2). On receipt of the report of the sample result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14, A, forward in such manner as may prescribed, a copy of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons, that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." The learned counsel brought to my notice that the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PD is dated 18th day of October, 1976 and after the receipt of that report, its copy was sent by the Government Food Inspector himself to the petitioner on 28th October, 1976 under covering memo Ex. PE but by that memo the petitioner was not informed that criminal proceedings had been launched against him and that he could exercise his right of sending the other part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Madhuban. According to him, the petitioner could not have been so informed about the launching of the criminal proceedings, because the complaint was filed in Court on 30th October, 1976. He, therefore, argued that as there has been non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Act, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained.;