UMA SHANKER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Uma Shanker against the judgment of Sri S. C. Jain, Sessions Judge, Ballia, dated 13-3-1981, by means of which he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1980 and upheld the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, convicting the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In this case sample of Haldi was taken from the shop of the applicant on 29-12-1978, this was sent to the public analyst on 1-1-1979 and report of the public analyst was made on 17-2-1979 and was received soon after that. Though this report was made on 17-2-1979, but the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on 15-11-1979 nine months later. It was urged that this undue delay in the filing of the complaint and the sample Haldi which was already damaged by insects would have been further damaged and totally spoilt by this delay. There could be no denial that the delay in this case was most unreasonable because the sample of Haldi, when sent to the public analyst was already 26. 8% damaged by the insects. If such sample was retained for nine months, it would certainly have been greatly damaged. It, however, cannot be said that it had got so much damaged by insects that it could not be analysin the Central Food Laboratory and, no prejudice to the applicant can be presumed. Notice was, however, given to the applicant under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 3-12 1979. In this notice it was said that the sample sent to the public analyst had been found adul terated and if he wanted he could make an application within seven days to get the sample sent for analysis to the Central Food Labora tory. Section 13 (2) of the Preven tion of Food Adulteration Act clear ly prescribes that the person accused of a charge of adulteration shall be allowed ten days time to make an application to get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. This statutory time allowed by law was further curtailed and the applicant was only allowed seven days time to make an application to get the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory. This was a denial of the statutory rights available to the applicant to get his sample sent for reanalysis. This could not be done and then it is not unlikely that be cause of this curtailment in time allowed to the applicant to get his sample sent for reanalysis he was prevented from getting the sample sent at all to the Central Food Laboratory. Since the sample could not be sent to the Central Food Laboratory and it is not known whether the Central Food Labora tory would have found it to be adul terated, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the applicant be cannot upheld. This revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and the sentence of the applicant are hereby set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to him. .