CHHOTEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Chhotey Lal 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 3 months' R.l.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the applicant was found carrying for sale 60 lits. of adulterated cow milk on 24-5-1978 at about 7 A.M. The sample taken by the Food Inspector was found on analysis by the Public Analyst to contain 5.7% fat and 5.7% non-fatty solids as against the prescribed 3.5% and 8.5% respectively. The sample was thus deficient in non-fatty solids by 2.8% even though it had 2.2% excess fatty contents. The defence that the milk was not for sale has been considered and disbelieved by the courts below. So were a number of legal points about irregularities in the procedure. It is not necessary to go into these for the learned counsel for the applicant has pressed only one point in revision.

(3.) It has been urged that there has not been compliance of Sec. 13(2) of the Act. The evidence in the case, however, is clear. The prosecution was launched on 16-12-1978 and an intimation along with a copy of the Public Analyst's report was forwarded to the applicant in Jan. 1979. This was returned as unserved and the returned cover is on record. The post office report on this is that it was being returned for complete address, It is, however, obvious that the complete address of the applicant, namely, Chhotey Lal son of Babulal of resident of Gadaryan Khera, P.S Kotwali, district Unnao, was duly and clearly noted on the registered cover. Sec. 13 (2) only requires sending of the intimation with a copy of the Public Analyst's report. The obligation is only to send and not to ensure service Therefore, the fact of return of the registered cover in spite of proper address cannot mean that Sec. 13(2) was not complied with. The accused cannot get any benefit from this feature. No attempt was made by him to apply to the court to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.