BEHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargva, J. In this criminal revision two points argued are - (1) that there is non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and (2) that the sentence awarded is excessive.

(2.) SO far as compliance or non-compliance of Sec, 13 (2) of the Preven tion of Food Adulteration Act is concerned, finding of the lower appellate court is the facts remain that the Registered Letter was taken by the correct address of the appellant and there someone named Ram Saran received the letter addressed to the appellant. This is a finding of fact which need not be reviewed in revision. Revisionist is Beharilal. In his statement under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. he said that Ram Saran is only his cousin. Ram Saran was called as court witness and he disclosed his name as Ram Saran, son of Beharilal. Whether Ram Saran is son of the revisionist or is his cousin it remains a fact that he is interested in denying his signature on the Acknowledgment Due. It cannot be said that the approach of the lower appellate court towards evidence is illegal or unwarranted. On the other hand, Section 13 (c) only requires the losal health authority to forward the notice with copy of the report of the public analyst to the person from whom sample is taken according to manner prescribed. Rule 91 of the Rules framed under the Act shows that the duty of the local health authority is to only send the notice along with the copy of the report of the public analyst by Registered post or deliver it to the person from whom sample has been taken. Thus it becomes obvious that sending of notice by Registered post to the accused is sufficient compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act. I hold that in the circumstances of the case prohibited non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act cannot be inferred,