GANGA DIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Jalaun at Orai, hence this revision. A sample of cow milk was purchased by the Food Inspector at 8. 30 A. M. on 4-6-1977 from the accused applicant in accordance with the provisions, of law. One of the sample phials, which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 44%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

(2.) BOTH the courts below on consideration of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case have held thai guilt of the accused established for the offence of adulteration.

(3.) I have very carefully considered the submissions as also the relevant material on record in connection therewith. It cannot be denied that the date on which the Chief Medical Officer has signed the intimation Ex. Ka-7 is 28th November, 1977. It also cannot be denied that the date on which the complaint has been received by the court of the Judicial Magistrate is 30th November, 1977. But it is significant to note that no question has been put in tie cross-examination to the Food Inspector to suggest that this intimation which was signed by the Chief Medical Officer on 28th November, 1977, was despatched to the accused-applicant on that very date and not a couple of days later. The statement of Food Inspector is that, both the intimation, as well as the report was sent to the accused. The accused appears to. be satisfied by mere denial of having received the same. He did not at all challenged that the report and the intimation was not sent subsequent to the launching of the prosecution, but was sent earlier. In the circumstances, I do not feel justified in holding that the intimation and the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused prior to the launching of the prosecution. Even assuming that they were sent two days earlier, the circumstances of the case justify an inference that there has been sufficient compliance of law.