RAM AATA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Aganval, J. Heard Shri G. P. Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE only question raised before this Court by learned counsel for the applicant is that the guarantee to the ap plicant under the provision of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been defeated. In this case the rejection of his application for sending the second phial of the sample to Central Food Laboratory after his appearance in court amounts to denial of justice. His right was further obstructed by failure of the prosecution to serve him with a notice, as required under the provision of Section 13 (2) and Rule 9 (A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) IN the above circumstances there remains no doubt that the applicant was denied his legal right guaranteed by Sec-lion 13 (2) of Prevention of Food Adul teration Act in this case. IN this denial the prosecution is to blame itself. IN the circumstances the direction given by the learned Session Judge in appeal on 5-6-1987 i. e. after five years of the laking of sample will in no way Serve any useful purpose. Since the time of admission of this revision i. e. 10-11-87, nearly 13 years have already elapsed, the sample must have deteriorated and no analysis may be possible.