VISHRAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge. Hence this revision.

(2.) The main point, which was argued in this revision is that there has been no compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act, inasmuch as a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the accused along with the intimation as required under that section. I have very carefully perused the record of the case and the impugned order. 1 find that this question was raised before the trial court and in order to satisfy himself whether a copy of the Public Analyst's report was sent to the accused, the trial court had passed an order on 3rd Aug., 1978 summoning the dispatch register and connected papers along with the clerk concerned of the office of C.M.O. The impugned order was passed by him after perusing these records. He found that there is an entry No. 584 dated 26-3-1977 in the register produced by the clerk of the C.M.O.'s office which indicates that the report was sent to the accused on 26th March, 1977. Since the complaint was lodged on 24th March, 1977, therefore, the Magistrate was of the opinion that there has been a compliance of law.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has argued that the accused has been severely prejudiced by this procedure adopted by the trial court. If he wanted to take the evidence with regard to the entry in the dispatch register of the C.M.O. into consideration along with its receipt, he should have got them filed in court and recorded the statement of the clerk concerned in proof thereof. The prosecution should have also put this aspect of the case to the accused in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C., so that he could explain the position. In my opinion there seems to be some substance in the submissions made by the applicant's counsel In order to do justice between the parties, I consider it necessary to remand the case again to the trial court with the direction that he should again summon the clerk concerned with the register and the relevant papers and record his statement on oath in court and also provide an opportunity of cross-examination to the counsel for the accused The Magistrate will also bring on the record the papers regarding dispatch of the report of the Public Analyst and also intimation, if any, contemplated under Sec. 13(2) of the Act requiring the accused to have his sample sent for re-analysis, if he was dissatisfied with the report of the Public Analyst. These documents should be properly filed in court and proved and an opportunity given to the accused to rebut them. These questions should be put to him in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C., so that fair justice is done to the applicant.