NARAIN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. This revision has been filed by Narain Prasad against the judgment and order dated 3-4-1987 of Shri S. K. Saxena, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1986 against the judgment and order dated 30-5-1984 of the Special Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offen ces), Gorakhpur convicting and sentenc ing the applicant under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short the Act) to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) I have heard Sri A. B. L. Gaur, learned counsel for the revisionist-ap plicant and learned State counsel.

(3.) ADVERTING to the first submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the case of the applicant is that he has not received the copy of the report of the Public Analyst in time to make an application under Sec tion 13 (2) of the Act. It was submitted before the Court below and also before me that on the postal receipt the seal of the post office does not indicate the year when the report was allegedly sent to the ap plicant. The learned lower appellate Court rejected this argument for the reason that PW. 2 Vijai Bahadur Yadav had stated that the report was sent to the applicant by post. In a criminal case if there remains a doubt whether the report was sent to the applicant in time to enable him to make an application under Section 13 (2) of the Act, it would tell upon the prosecution case because the applicant was deprived of his valuable right to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and prejudice is bound to occur. Since in the postal receipt the year when the registered cover containing report of the Public Analyst is missing, it leaves room for doubt whether the same was sent to the applicant in time. The matter should have been clarified at the trial to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion. The offence was committed as far back as 20years, hence it would not be useful even to send the case for re-trial and in the circumstances of the case I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove with reference to the postal receipt as to when the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant.