MARTAND BALVANT RISALDAR Vs. CHHAGANLAL AMBALAL GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of 4 appeals have been referred to the Division Bench as they involve a question of interpretation of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). As the question is one of interpretation of the said rule the facts of the cases need not be stated.

(2.) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 came into force on June 1 1955 There was no provision in the said Act or the Rules framed thereunder requiring the Food Inspector or any other authority to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken. Under sec. 10 of the Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 9 framed thereunder a Food Inspector had only a duty to send a sample taken according to the provisions of law to the Public Analyst for analysis. Rule 9 of the Rules was amended by notification No. GSR 1523 dated July 8 1968 and Rule 9(j) was added. Rule 9(j) thus added provided that it was also a duty of the Food Inspector to send by hand or registered post a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken in case it was found to be not confirming to the Act or Rules made thereunder as soon as the case was filed in the Court. By inclusion of Rule 9(j) a duty was cast upon the Food Inspector to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken in case the report indicated any adulteration. The Food Inspector had to supply a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken as soon as the case was filed in the Court It appears that the provisions of this rule were more often not complied with and persons prosecuted for the offences under the Act were not supplied with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst as soon as the case was filed against them. The Government therefore amended Rule 9 (j) by notification No. 1364 dated November 6 1973 and it was provided that it shall be the duty of the Food Inspector to send by hand or registered post a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within 10 days of the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst. The Government again amended Rule 9(j) by notification No. 205 dated February 23 1974 effective from May 23 1974 and the said rule so far relevant is as under:

(3.) The question is one of interpretation of this rule. It may be noticed that prior to the last amendment in Rule 9(j) it was a duty of the Food Inspector to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst either by hand delivery or by registered post to the person from whom the sample was taken. Under the amended Rule 9(j) a duty is cast upon the Food Inspector to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by registered post to the person from whom the sample had been taken. In short it is now no longer the duty of the Food Inspector to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by hand delivery. In the present appeals it is an admitted fact that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst had not been sent to the accused by registered post. It is also an admitted fact that the accused in all the appeals received a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by hand delivery. It is contended that as the copy of the report of the Public Analyst had not been sent by registered post there is non-compliance of mandatory Rule 9(j) of the Rules which must result in the acquittal of the accused. On the other hand it is contended that the provisions of Rule 9(j) requiring the Food Inspector to send by registered post a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken is directory.