KALLOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A milk sample was collected by the Food Inspector from the accused Kallo on July 25, 1974, after completing all the formalities prescribed by the law and the Rules. One portion of the sample was sent to the public analyst who found the milk to be containing 4.7% fat and 4% non fatty solids. Thus the sample was found deficient by 22% in milk fatty and 56% in non-fatty solids. This resulted in the conviction of the accused by the learned C.J.M., Moradabad under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to undergo RI. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months. The learned VIIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad, upheld the order of conviction and sentence vide his judgment darted June 14, 1982. It is that judgment of VIIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad which has been challenged by the appellant in this criminal revision and which requires my scrutiny of its sustainability.

(2.) AFTER the report of the public analyst was received its notice was sent to the accused who applied for second sample collected from him to be sent to the Director Central Laboratory for analysis and report. According to the report of the Director, fatty solids were found to be 4.3% which are almost the same as was found by the public analyst: but non-fatty solids was found to be 6.9% against the minimum prescribed limit of 8.5%. It may be noticed that the public analyst found non-fatty solids to be 4% in the milk sample sent to him for analysis.

(3.) THE above authorities, when read together, clearly say that various time limits laid down in the Act and Rules framed thereunder are directive in nature and not mandatory and further that the said periods are not to be equated with period of limitation. All the same, it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to have the samples analysed and the prosecutions launched with utmost despatch and that inordinate delay in making available to the accused his right to get the sample re-tested from the Director of Central Food Laboratory would tantamount to denial of his valuable and mandatory right under Section 13 (2) of the Act, A delay of eight months has been considered to be fatal to the prosecution case.