NARAYANA PRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section (16)(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the said Act of 1954"). The allegation against the appellant was of violation of clauses (i) and (v) of Section 7 of the said Act of 1954.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 16th January 2002 the appellant was selling chana daal in weekly market in Kagpur when the Food Inspector came there and called upon the appellant to show licence. However, the appellant failed to show any licence. The Food Inspector purchased 750 gms of chana daal from the appellant. The said quantity was divided into three parts and was sent for examination to Public Analyst. The report of Public Analyst showed that the chana daal was adulterated. Judgment and Order of conviction was rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 12th October 2007. The learned Magistrate convicted the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. In appeal preferred by the appellant, the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant preferred a Revision Application before the High Court, which has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 3rd May 2018.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that as mandatorily required by sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the said Act of 1954, a copy of report of Public Analyst was not supplied to the appellant, as a result of which his valuable right to get the samples analysed by Central Food Laboratory has been defeated. He pointed out that according to the prosecution case, a copy of the report was allegedly sent to the appellant by registered post and endorsements made by the Postman showed that number of attempts were made to serve the letter but the appellant was not available even after giving intimation and therefore, the letter was returned by the Postman. He submitted that the High Court has committed an error by holding that the appellant has refused to accept the copy of the report sent to him by registered post. He submitted that there is a complete violation of mandatory provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13. He would, therefore, submit that the prosecution is vitiated. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Vijendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 15 SCC 763 in support of his contentions. He also relied upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Jameel v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1999) SCC online Allahabad 1547.