JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. P. Singh, J. The applicant, Jagdish was prosecuted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in the trial the learned Magistrate held that, the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged and consequently the accused was sentenced to one year's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500. 00.

(2.) JAGDISH went to appeal and his appeal Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1989 was dismissed by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad on 15. 12. 89. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Appellate Court, JAGDISH has come in revision.

(3.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that he was deprived of his right under Section 13 (2) of the Act due to the delay on the part of the authorities concerned in sending the copy of the report to the accused. THE argument has force. As I have already observed, the sample was taken on 18th September, 1986 and the copy of the expert report was sent to the accused on 10. 6. 87. It is significant to note that the report of the expert is dated 27th October, 1986 and it was received in the office of the C. M. O. , Fatehgarh sometime in March 1987 as is clear from the fact that there is an endorsement of C. M. O. upon this report and the said endorsement is dated 27. 3. 87.