(1.) The petitioner was convicted for an offence under S.16(1)(a)(i) and (ii)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 1/2 months. This conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner has thereafter come in revision. The facts admitted are that the Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of bengal-gram flour from the petitioner on 10-10-1978. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated and it contains 12 percent tapioca starch. At the instance of the petitioner, the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, was also obtained (Ext. P16) in which also the opinion was given thus:-
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions:
(3.) Under S.13(2) of the Act or. receipt of a report of the result of the analysis by the Public Analyst to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local Health Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, forward a copy of the report to such person. It is seen, in this case, that the Food Inspector filed the complaint on 2-3-1979, the court took cognizance of the case on 14-3-1979 and the report of the result of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused on 13-3-1979. It is, therefore, contended that the report was sent before the prosecution was instituted on 14-3-1979.