JOGINA REVISIONIST Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Jogina against the judgment and order dated 8/3/1982 of Sri D. S. Ram, III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghajipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1981 by means of which he dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction of the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 30/1/1978 at about 8 a.m. in the morning the Food Inspector went to Qasha Zananiya in Ward No. 4 and purchased 750 ml. of milk from the applicant for its analysis. He gave the usual notice to the applicant and informed him that the milk was for analysis and then divided the milk in three parts and sealed it in three clean bottles. One of these when sent to the Public Analyst for analysis was found deficient 13 per cent. In fatty contents and by 16 per cent, in by non-fatty solids. Sanction of the Chief Medical Officer was, therefore, obtained and the applicant prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid.

(2.) The only point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in this case was that intimation as required under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not sent to the applicant.

(3.) P.W. 3 Baleshwar. Food Clerk, in the office of the Chief Medical-Officer, stated that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant along with a letter, copy of which was exhibit Ka 13. Exhibit Ka 13 was, however, not an intimation as should have been sent to the applicant under Section 13(2) of the said Act because in this letter all what was said that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was being sent to the applicant and he was not told that within ten days of receiving this intimation he may make an application to the Magistrate, concerned and get the sample with him sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Since he was not informed that he may get the sample sent to the Central, Food Laboratory for reanalysis it was not a sufficient intimation to him in accordance with Section 13(2) of the said Act and he was not afforded opportunity under this section to get the sample re-examined. This obviously resulted in prejudice to him and because he was denied the opportunity of getting the milk sent for re-analysis to Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, therefore, he could not be convicted.