YADAV LAL Vs. THE STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant has been sentenced to six months R.I. and Rs. 1,000.00 as fine.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the judgments of the two courts below on two grounds; firstly, that the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to him as required under Rule 9-A of the Rules framed under the Act. A bare perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector would show that on 11-10-1974 a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent & by registered post. Nothing was asked in the cross-examination of this witness. The courts below have, therefore, rightly negatived the submission of the accused on this point.

(3.) Lastly, it has been urged that the quantity of the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was only 100 grams when it should have been 125 grams. There was nothing to indicate on the record that the quantity of the sample sent to the' Public Analyst was inadequate for him to proceed with his lest and as the Public Analyst could submit his report, a presumption could be raised that the quantity sent to him was sufficient for the purposes of the test. Moreover, the provisions of Rule 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules are merely directory. The aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant has also no force.