(1.) This is a revision by one Babboo punishable under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to the Act.
(2.) The prosecution case was that on the morning of the 21st of July, 1966 the applicant was found on the Rewa Road near village Sarangpur, within the jurisdiction of police station Ghurpur in the district of Allahabad, transporting cow's milk for sale, sample whereof was purchased by Sri B.L. Sharma, a Food Inspector, and on examination of the said sample by the Public Analyst the same was found deficient in non-fatty solid contents. The applicant pleaded for guilty and stated that he was transporting the milk for his own use and not for sale. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence and convicted the applicant, awarding him rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. An appeal to the learned Sessions Judge having failed the applicant filed this revision.
(3.) At the hearing of this revision learned counsel for the applicant raised two substantial points. The first was that by reason of delay in starting the prosecution of the applicant, the applicant was deprived of the valuable right conferred on him by the provision contained in Sec. 13 of the Act to get the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory because by the time the applicant learnt of his prosecution the sample must have deteriorated to such an extent that it would have defied analysis. Reliance in support of this contention, was placed by learned counsel on my decision in the case of Net Ram Vs. State, 1968 All. L.J. 916. The second point raised by learned counsel was that, on the material on record it could not appropriately be held that when the Food Inspector took the sample he added thereto the necessary quantity of formaline as required by the rules framed under the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that, whilst the first contention must be negative, the second must be accepted and this revision must be allowed.