CHAKRAVARTHY Vs. STATE, FOOD INSPECTOR, KUMBAKONAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur Division at Nagapattinam confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Ss. 16(1)(a), 7(1)(a) and 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months rigorous in prisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - imposed on him by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mayuram.

(2.) THE facts are : - On 29 -2 -76 at about 6 -00 a.m. P.W.I. Panchalam, the Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality purchased 660 ml. of milk for the purpose of analysis and sealed it in three clean and dry bottles in accordance with rules after adding the requisite quantity of "formalin", sent one such bottle to the Public Analyst. Ex.P -4, the report of the Analyst shows that the sample was deficient in solids -not -fat to the extent of at least 7 per cent. This report was served on the revision petitioner and an acknowledgement under Ex. P -5 was obtained by the Food Inspector who laid the complaint.

(3.) ONE of the contentions taken by Mr. Mahaboob Jan, learned council appearing for the revision petitioner is that the mandatory fro visions of S. 13(2) of the Prevention of body Adulteration Act have not been followed and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. Their contention appears to be well -founded, S. 13(2) of the Act states that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis to the effect that the article of food is Adulterated the local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the simple of the article of food was taken, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the analysis to such person informing him that if it is so desired, he may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of he copy of the report to get the sample of he article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In this case, it is clear from the evidence of P.W 1. that a copy of the analyst report was served on the accused -revision petitioner on 3rd February, 1977. The complaint bears the Court seal of the date 28 -2 -1977. Though the complaint is dated -1977 it could not have reached the court before 23 -2 -1977 the date of service of the report on the accused -revision petitioner, because I find from the complaint that the Municipal Health Officers, Kumbakonam has forwarded the complaint only on 25 -2 -1977. Therefore, it is quite clear that the result of the analysis was communicated to the revision petitioner prior to the institution of the prosecution which is against the provisions of S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A Bench of this Court in Crl. R. No. 187 of 1977, P.K. Worthy v. State is of the view that the provisions of S. 13(2) of the Act are mandatory and the non -compliance with the provisions of that section would vitiate the entire proceedings. This aspect of the question was not considered by the trial court and the best course to be adopted, under such circumstances, is to remit the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. Accordingly, this revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal in the light of the observations in Crl. R.C. No. 187 of 1977, Murthy v. State. The fine, if any, paid will be refunded to the revision petitioner.