SONURAM KANWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 16th May, 1995 passed in Cr. A. No. 55/87 whereby learned Additional Sessions judge, Dhamtari has rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3. 1. 1987 passed in Criminal case No. 232/83 by Judicial Magistrate First class, Dhamtari whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R. I. for one month.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have ignored the fact that there is absolute non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act as there is no evidence available on record to show that after receipt of the port of the result of the Public Analyst that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health)Authority forwarded the copy of the report of the result of the Public Analyst to the applicant informing him that he 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 the article of food kept by the Local (Health)Authority analysed by the Central Food laboratory. Referring to the deposition of the Food Inspector P. W. 1 K. K. Bengopalan, it was argued that in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he is not aware whether the accused received the notice or not. Reliance is placed in the matter of State of Orissa v. Gauranga Sahu and State of Gujarat v. Mehbub Abdulgani Kathki and another.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the Food Inspector p. W. 1 K. K. Bengopalan in his statement has deposed that the Local (Health) Authority sent notice under Section 13 (2) along with the report of the result of public analyst to the accused with a copy of Ex. P-9 to him. There was no reason to disbelieve the assertion of the Food Inspector and both the courts below have rightly held that there is due compliance of Section 13 (2) of the act and thus there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.