STATE Vs. MURUGATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was the accused in S.T.R.No.702 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi.

(2.) SHE was transacting business in provisions after obtaining a licence for running of such a shop in the name of her son Marimuthu at Pethanaickanur.

(3.) NO doubt true it is, the salient provisions adumbrated under Sec.13(2) of the Acts and 9-A of the Rules framed there under require a copy of the report of the public Analyst to be sent to the person from whom sample was taken, immediately after launching the prosecution. Rule 9-A had been amended with effect from 9.7.1984 requiring the Local Health Authority to furnish a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken, within a period of 10 days, after the institution of the prosecution. The old Rule which was in force prior to 9.7.1984 required the Local Health Authority to furnish a copy of such report, immediately after launching of the prosecution. In the case on hand, the sampling operation had been effectuated on 9.7.1983 when the old Rule 9-A was in force.