GOVIND MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition as per provisions of Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred to assail validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 19.4.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, affirming the judgment dated 13.4.1989 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1954 '') and further sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default of making payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 1 1/2 months.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed are that a complaint against the petitioner was filed on 18.9.1983 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh alleging therein that a sample of mixed milk from the petitioner was taken on 29.7.1983 in presence of two witnesses and the same was sealed and sent to the Local Health Authority, Jaipur for analysis. The Local Health Authority found the milk adulterated, thus, after examining Shri Sardar Singh, Food Inspector, who took the sample, the petitioner was charged under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. It was also stated that a copy of the report of Local Health Authority was sent to the petitioner as per provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1954. During the course of trial an application was preferred by the petitioner on 23.2.1987 seeking permission to get certification of the sample of milk from the Central Food Laboratory. The application aforesaid was rejected on 15.1.1988, being not filed within a period of ten days as required under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954. The trial Court held that a copy of the Loca1 Health Authority report was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 17.8.1983, therefore, he should have applied for certification of the sample from Director of the Central Food Laboratory within a period of ten days from its receipt. Being convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as said above, the petitioner preferred an appeal and that too came to be rejected. The appellate Court negatived contention of the appellant that copy of the Local Health Authority report was not received by him and also affirmed conclusion of the Court that the accused should have demanded for certification of the sample by Director of the Central Food Laboratory within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of report by Local Health Authority.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, while giving challenge to the judgments impugned, contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below failed to appreciate that neither copy of the Local Health Authority report was received by the petitioner nor an opportunity was accorded to him to get certification of sample as per provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954. It is asserted that the trial Court failed to ascertain that whether report was served upon the petitioner or not specially when such receipt was denied in unambiguous terms. As per counsel for the petitioner the presumption drawn by the trial Court regarding service of the report is erroneous. It is also stated that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Onkarlal v. State of Rajasthan1 the trial Court should have allowed, the petitioner to get certification from the Director, Central Food Laboratory as per provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954.;