STATE Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State against the Order of acquittal of the respondent by the lower Appellate Court, in respect of an offence under Section 7(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(1-a)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution case was that on 8.3.1979 at 6.30 a.m. the Food Inspector (P.W.1) of Vikramasingapuram accosted the respondent when he was selling milk and purchased sample under Exhibits P-1 and P-2. On analysis, the milk was found to be deficient in solids-not-fat by 7%.The respondent (accused) denied that the milk was for sale. The learned Magistrate on evidence found that the offence has been made out and therefore, convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500.00. The respondent preferred an appeal and the lower Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted him. Hence the appeal by the State.

(2.) I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The only point urged by the learned Public Prosecutor is that there are different standards prescribed for solids-fat and solids-not-fat and that the deficiency in any one of them would attract the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. This has been held to be soby various decisions of this Court, since obviously the deficiency in one cannot off-set the deficiency in the other. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court has committed an error.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused contended that there is a delay of 12 days in serving the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and that it is fatal to the prosecution case. However, in a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Tulsiram v. State of M.P., (1984) Crl.L.J. 1731, the word "immediately" has been interpreted as conveying a sense of continuity rather than urgency and it has been observed that the rule is not mandatory but only directory. Consequently, it was held that non-compliance is not fatal. The result is, the order of acquittal in this case by the lower Appellate Court has to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of acquittal of the respondent by the lower Appellate Court is set aside and the respondent (accused) is convicted under Sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(1-a)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.