- (1.) This criminal appeal by the State has been filed against the judgment dated 7th April, 93 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original case No. 401/86, by which the accused was acquitted of the charge u/S. 7 read with 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short "the Act" hereinafter). The accused was acquitted mainly on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of S. 13(2) of the Act which was seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
(2.) The relevant provision of S. 13(2) of the Act runs as follows :- "13(2) On receipt of the report of the result of 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, persons 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 u/S. 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report 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 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." Rule 9-A of the Rules runs as follows :- "9-A Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned :- The Local (Health) Authority shall within a period of ten days after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand, and may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food Inspector and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name address and other particulars has been disclosed under S. 14-A of the Act." #
(3.) It was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that as the accused did not exercise his right of re-analysis of the sample within the prescribed period, even though, the report of the Central Food Laboratory was sent to him vide Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18 and it cannot be said that the respondent was deprived of his right of re-analysis of the sample envisaged u/S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the accused be convicted of the offence charge u/S. 7 read with 16 of the Act. #;