ACHHAIBAR Vs. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Achhaibar against the judgment and order dated 2nd of May, 1981, by Sri J. P. Singh IV Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1980 confirming the judgment of the trial court and the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence imposed on him.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 22-5-1975 at about 8 A. M. Sudhir Kumar Bhatia took sample of cow milk from the applicant Achhaibar near the Town Hall, Police-Station Kotwali, in the City of Varanasi and paid its price to the applicant. He divided the sample in three parts, sealed them in three clean phials and one of these, when sent to the public analyst, was found to contain adulterated milk. Sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was, therefore, obtained and the applicant prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) In this case it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the report of the public analyst was not sent to the applicant as required under Sec. 13(2) of the Act and, therefore, he could not have the report tested by sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It is true, as stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that in this case Sec. 13(2) of the Act was not applicable because this was added by an amending Act, which came into force on 1-4-1976. The former rule 9(j), however, also provided that a copy of the report of the public analyst should be sent to the person from whom the sample was taken. The statement of the Food Inspector was that notice was sent to the applicant by the office; but the person, who had sent the notice did not appear to say that he sent a copy of the report of the public analyst to the applicant and no postal receipt was filed to say that such a notice along with the report of the Public analyst had been sent to the applicant. It was, therefore, not proved that any copy of the report of the public analyst was sent to the applicant. The right given to the applicant under the present Sec. 13(2) of the Act was, therefore, denied and he could not get the report of the public analyst tested by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The conviction of the applicant, therefore, cannot be upheld.