K KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. No. 255 of 1977 before the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, is the petitioner. On 14-11-1977 at about 12-30 p. m. when he was taking cow's milk to the Chottanikkara Milk Cooperative Society, the Food Inspector, the respondent herein purchased from him 675 ml. of milk for the purpose of sampling and analysis. On analysis the milk was found to be adulterated containing not less than 9% of added water. The petitioner was put on trial. He denied the charge. Prosecution examined one witness on its side and marked Exts. P1 to P8. The petitioner examined one witness on his side. After trial, the trial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence with which he was charged and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. l000/ -. Aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Session Court, Ernakulam. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, by his judgment in Crl. A. No. 10 of 1979, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE revision petition as originally filed was grounded on the irregularities committed by the Food Inspector in sampling, in his failure to comply with Section 13 of the Act and also on the ground that conviction was based on evidence which was not wholly acceptable. The petitioner has now filed Crl. M. P. No. 1111 of 1981 raising an additional ground. This ground is based on Rule 9-A, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The case put forward is that there was in ordinate delay in forwarding the copy of the report of the result of the analysis in Form III to the accused. I have allowed this petition.

(3.) I am not impressed with the submissions made by the petitioner's learned Counsel on the grounds originally raised in the petition. However, the new ground deserves consideration. I allowed it to be raised because it vitally affects the case on hand. For a proper appreciation of the rigidity of this Rule it has to be read and more profitably juxtaposed with Section 11 (3), Rules 7 (3) and 17 (a) and (b ). Rule 9-A was introduced with effect from 4-1-1977. Before the introduction of this rule the rule that held the field was Rule 9-J. as per that Rule a copy of the report of the Public Analyst had to be sent to the accused within 10 days from the date of receipt of the report from the Public Analyst. Rule 9-A reads as follows: 9-A. Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned.- The Local (Health) Authority shall immediately 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, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act: xx xx xx This has to be read along with Section 13 (2 ). The mandate contained in Section 13 (2) and Rule 9-A on the Local Health Authority is to forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis by registered post immediately. Section 11 (3) as well as Rule 7 (3) and Rule 17 (a) and (b) can be usefully read in this context: