KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application arises out of a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act XXXVII of 1954). According to the prosecution, the applicant had exposed milk for sale. A Food Inspector took sample from the milk, and sent it to the Public Analyst. It was found that the sample contained 14 per cent of added water. The accused was, therefore, prosecuted for having exposed adulterated milk for sale. The accused admitted that he is a vendor of milk, and that a sample of his milk was taken from him. He, however, maintained that his milk was pure, and not adulterated. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, and held that the milk in question was adulterated. In view of his previous convictions, the accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. An appeal filed by Kamal Singh was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra. Kamal Singh has now come to this Court in revision.

(2.) It has been urged for the applicant that, various rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have not (sic) complied with in the present case. Reliance was placed upon Rules 7, 15, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration. Rules Rule 7 deals with duties of the Public Analyst. It is mentioned under Rule 7, that the Public Analyst shall note the condition of the seal on the bottle sent to him. Rule 15 requires that the bottles or containers shall be properly labelled and addressed. Rule 17 describes how containers of samples should' be sent to the Public Analyst. Rule 18 lays down that memorandum and impression of seal should be sent separately by post. There is no evidence on the record about the compliance with these various rules.

(3.) In Raghunath Mody v. Kurseong Municipality, 1923 AIR(Cal) 561 it was pointed out that, under Section 14 of the Bengal Food Adulteration Act the Public Analyst must submit a certificate in the form prescribed. It was found that no such certificate was submitted in that case. The Public Analyst reported in the case by a letter in the ordinary office form. It was held that his letter was not admissible in evidence without proof of the truth of its contents. It appears that under the Bengal Food Adulteration Act it was the report of the Public Analyst, which could be received in evidence, It followed that a mere letter could not be received as a substitute for a formal report. That was why it was held that a letter could not be admissible in evidence. I do not find any such direction in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules laying down that, a report of the Public Analyst shall not be admissible in evidence without due compliance with certain rules. It. is possible to take the Public Analyst's report into consideration even in a case, where there was non-compliance with some of the Rules. Mr. C.S. Saran appearing for the applicant pointed out that the word 'shall' has been used in the various rules under consideration. The word 'shall' is not decisive on the point whether a particular rule is directory or mandatory. One has to read a particular rule in order to decide whether a particular rule is directory or mandatory. After going through the various rules under consideration, I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the rules under consideration are directory and not mandatory. It, therefore, follows that, even if a particular rule was not followed, that would not be sufficient for interfering with the applicant's conviction under the Act.