ARUMAINAYAGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reivision petitioners have been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, 'Shencottah, for an offence under Ss. 7(1) and (2) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 2(1a) and (a) and (m) and 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and R. 42(m) of the Rules framed thereunder. In that, on 14-6-1979 at 5.00 p.m. the first petitioner had sold compounded asafoetida for sale which was manufactured by the second petitioner and that on analysis the sample was found to contain foreign resin. The Food Inspector was examined as P.W.1 and P. W.2 who is a mahazar witness, as usual, turned hostile. The accused contended that the asafoetida was not kept for sale and that it was kept only for treatment of cattle disease. The accused also examined a witness (D.W. 1) to the effect that the concerned article was kept in the lumber-room where the damaged articles were kept.

(2.) The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused and sentenced each of them to three months, rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to one till the raising of the Court and confirmed the fine. The accused have now come on revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the mandatory provisions of S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have not been complied within this case, and therefore, the conviction has to be set aside. It was pointed out that the Court had taken cognizance of the case on 20-8-1979, but the accused 1 and 2 were served with reports of the Analyst only on 13-9-1979 and 15-9-1979 respectively. It is therefore argued that there was a delay of three weeks. Reliance was placed on the ruling reported in Sebastian v. State, 1982 Mad LW (Cri) 28, for the proposition that the word 'immediately' in R. 9- A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules would mean 'at once' or 'without delay' or 'forthwith'. It was held in that case that a day or two can be taken as 'immediately' and that it is always a question of fact to be determined taking into consideration all the circumstances in a given case. Another decision was relied on which is reported in State v. Pachiappan 1982 Mad LW (Cri) 207, wherein a delay of 17 days between the filing of the complaint and the service of notice under S. 13(2) violated the provisions of the Act. In yet another case reported in P. Rathinasami v. The State by Food Inspector, Ayyampettai, Town Panchayat 1982 (Mad) LW (Cri) 117, a delay of ten days in forwarding the copy of the Analyst Report to the accused after the initiation of the prosecution was held to be not in conformity with the requirements of S. 13(2) of .the Act read with R. 9-A of the Rules framed thereunder.