SATROHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by convict is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.7.1984 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1984 whereunder he affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionist by the learned Magistrate in connection with an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act).

(2.) IN brief, the relevant facts are that on 22.10.81 at about 8 a.m. Chief Food INspector, Sitapur found the revisionist in possession of about 18 litres of cows' milk which was kept for sale in two canes on a bicycle. He purchased 750 ml. of milk from the revisionist on payment of Rs. 1.50. After observing the necessary formalities as required by law, one phial of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported deficiency of 71% in milk fat and 34% in non-fatty solids. After obtaining the requisite sanction for prosecution the Food INspector instituted a complaint against the revisionist in the competent court. The learned Magistrate after trial found the revisionist guilty and sentenced him under Section 7 (i)16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act to undergo six months' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1.000 and in default to undergo three months' more R.I. The appeal against this order of conviction and sentence met with failure. Hence this revision.

(3.) IN the instant case, the copy of the P.A.'s report was sent to the revisionist from the office of the Local Health Authority, Sitapur with a covering letter dated 8.2.1982 as per Ex. Ka-8. The Food INspector, A. K. Gupta. P.W. 1 was examined by the prosecution in this behalf to say that the said letter was sent by registered post and its postal receipt dated 10.2.1982 was affixed on the Stamp Register of the Office of the Local Health Authority. IN this cross-examination, this witness had to concede that whatever statement he has given with regard to the compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act is based upon the copy of letter ex. Ka-8 which he received from the Office of the Local Health Authority. It, therefore, follows that the Food INspector A. K. Gupta had no personal knowledge regarding the despatch of letter dated 8.2.1982 by registered post to the revisionist. The revisionist has denied the receipt of P.A.'s report. The prosecution has also not placed on record the postal receipt whereunder the said letter was sent to the revisionist by registered post. Likewise there is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the copy of the P.A.'s report was actually sent together with letter Ex. Ka. 8. Mere' forwarding of the copy of the report of the Public Analyst by registered post is not enough. It is further to be established that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was received by the accused. Moreover, full and clear description of the Court should also be mentioned in the covering letter so that the accused may, if so advised, exercise his right of getting the sample re-analysed at the Central Food Laboratory. IN the letter as per Ex. Ka. 8, it has been simply stated that he may apply to the court concerned for re-analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, if so desired. IN my view, this leaves much to be desired. The accused had to be clearly told that he could apply in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur for re-analysis of the sample at the Central Food Laboratory, if so desired.