RAM SARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, Ram Saran, has been convicted under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default further R.I. for 3 months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the applicant was found' carrying for sale adulterated buffaloes milk at 7.30 A.M. on (9-11-1978. It is claimed that the sample taken by the Food Inspector was on analysis by the Public Analyst found to contain 4.9% fat and 7.3% non-fatty solids as against the prescribed 6% and 9%. Both the courts below have accepted the evidence of the milk having been for sale and the sample being adulterated and rejected the defence that the milk was not for sale and was being taken by the applicant for the Thekedar. Learned counsel for the applicant attached the sanction Ex. Ka. 7. This sanction order dated 9-4-1979 is type written, dated and signed by the Chief Medical Officer. It mentions that the papers produced by the Food Inspector had been perused and consent for institution of the prosecution under Sec. 7/16 against the applicant was given and prosecution filed. The Food Inspector's proposal Ex Ka 6 shows the papers submitted by him to have been the Public Analyst report, the notice and receipt about sample taking and the copy of Form-7 by which the sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst. I do not find any irregularity in this sanction.

(3.) An attempt was made to argue that Sec. 13(2) of the Act had not been complied with. The prosecution was instituted in this case on 24-4-1979 through complaint Ex. Ka. 8 dated 19-4-1979. The evidence shows that the registered cover, notice along with a copy of the Public Analyst report was forwarded to the applicant at his correct address but was returned on 30-4-1979 with the post office report dated 26-4-79, "left with (?) address". Under Sec. 13(2) the duty of the Local Health authority is only to forward by registered post a copy of the Public Analyst report and the intimation. It is not their obligation to effect service. The address in this case was full and complete and, therefore, it must be held that Sec. 13(2) was complied with by the Local Health Authority. The decision of the court below has not been shown to suffer from any infirmity. The conviction must, therefore stand. Considering the extent of adulteration I also see no reason to interfere with the sentence.