ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR ULUNDURPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner is a small grocery merchant in Ulundurpet. His shop was visited by the Food Inspector, Ulundurpet Town Panchayat on 7-12-1980 at about 9 a.m. The Food Inspector purchased gingili oil and sent it for analysis after complying with all the formalities prescribed under law. Upon the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the oil contained 4.4% of celeic acid as against the maximum of 3.0% prescribed by clause A. 17(11) to Appenedix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also that the said oil was unfit for human consumption, the Food Inspector filed on 21-1-1981 complaint before the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet, South Arcot Division. Charges were framed against the revision petitioner for offences punishable (under Ss.2(1a)(a)(f) and 7(1) read with S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The trial Court, by its judgment dated 14-5-1981, found the accused guilty, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months. On appeal, the Court of Session, South Arcot Division at cuddalore, confirmed both the conviction and the sentence by its judgment dt. 18-8-1983. It is the correctness of that judgment, which is challenged by the accused in this revision petition.

(3.) The only ground urged before me is that the notice under S. 13(2) of the Act was sent to him prior to the institution of the complaint and as such, the proceeding was vitiated. As per the rules, a copy of the report of the Public Analyst is to be sent to the concerned person, whether the article is found to be adulterated or not. When the article is not adulterated, under the proviso to R.9(a) of the Rules, it should be done within ten days from the date of receipt of the report from the Public Analyst. If, on the contrary the result of the Analyst revealed the commission of an offence the report is to be sent as per the provisions of the main clause to R.9(a) of the Rules and S. 13(2) of the Act, immediately after the institution of the proceedings. The purpose of sending a copy of the report to the accused person is twofold. One is, for preparation of the defence by the accused in general, and the other is, to enable the accused to apply to the Court concerned to get another sample of article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Since such application is to be filed before the Court where the prosecution is pending and since it has to be done within ten days from the date of receipt of the analysis report, the Food Inspector has to necessarily intimate to the accused the particulars of the Court where the prosecution has been launched. So, the notice under S. 13(2) of the Act, and under R.9(a) of the Rules, can be given only after the institution of the prosecution before the Court. This is what is stated in S. 13(2) of the Act and restated with emphasis in R.9(a) of the Rules. The point was also considered elaborately in a Bench decision of this Court in Kandasami v. Food Inspector, Athur, 1981 Mad LW (Cri) 299, where lit was held that the notice under S. 13(2) of the Act should be given after the institution of the prosecution and not prior to it.