STATE Vs. KALYANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is by the State against an order of acquittal.

(2.) THE accused stood charged as follows: On 29.12.1981 at about 12.15 p.m. in the presence of independent witnesses at his provision store at No.5-A, Chittoor Road, Tiruttani the accused sold 750 grams of Gingelly oil at the rate of Rs.10.90 to the Food Inspector, Town Panchayat, Tiruttani who sent the same for analysis and in the analysis the sample was found adulterated and therefore the accused is guilty of an offence punishable under Secs.7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec2(i)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) NOW, Rule 9-A at the relevant time, i.e. before 9.7.1984 when it was amended, read thus: "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 the 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 has been disclosed under Sec.14-A of the Act". Therefore, as per Rule 9-A, the Local Health Authority shall forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person concerned immediately after the institution of the prosecution. Immediately means without any delay. In the present case, the prosecution was instituted on 1.3.1982. As per the evidence of the Food Inspector (P.W.1) the copy of the report was sent to the accused on 22.3.1992, i.e. after a lapse of 21 days. Sending a copy of the report after 21 days cannot by any reasoning, be said to have been sent immediately. In this view of the matter, in court does not think that the finding of the court below that the trial was vitiated can be said to be erroneous. Further, in this case the order of the court below was passed on 18.12.1984. NOW we are in 1993. In these circumstances, I do not think the order of the court below acquitting the accused can be interfered with. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.