LAWS(ALL)-1982-10-11

RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On October 05, 1982
RAJA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Varanasi. Hence this revision.

(2.) IT appears that a sample of mixed Cow and Buffalo milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the applicant, who was selling the same at about mid day on 24th December, 1979. On analysis by the Public Analyst it was found deficient in non -fatty solid contents by 14 per cent. The report of the Public Analyst was received on 28th January, 1980. After obtaining sanction for prosecution a complaint was filed against the accused on 7th May, 1981. On 19th June, 1981, the notice contemplated under Section 13 (2) was forwarded to the applicant along with the intimation Ex. Ka. 8. The accused admitted that he was selling milk, sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector against payment. He, however, denied that the sample was adulterated. He further denied that he had received the copy of the report of the Public Analyst.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant has contended that on account of delay in the prosecution, the accused has been deprived of his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Act of getting his sample reanalysed by the Central Food Laboratory. He has argued that in this long lapse of time intervening between the taking of the sample and the launching of the prosecution, the sample must have deteriorated and become incapable of analysis. In support of this, he has cited a single Judge decision of this Court Munna v. State of U. P. reported in 1982 (UP) Cri. L.J. R 73 : 1982 Cri. LJ 884. In my opinion, the aforesaid case can no longer be considered to be good law after the decision of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 1277:(1971 Cri. LJ 1075), Babu Lal Hargovind Das v. State of Gujarat. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this connection are as follows (para 6): -