DULI CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 11-5-1982 passed by the Distt. Judge, Agra, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act), and sentenced him for six months and awarded a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and confirmed the order dated 1-9-81 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, I Class convicting the applicant under the aforesaid Sections and awarding the aforesaid sentences.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 30-9-1977 the applicant was found selling cow milk. In view of the provisions of Section 10 (Ten) of the Act, the Inspector having reason to suspect the milk an article of food to be adulterated procured the sample according to rule and sent it for analysis. One of the sealed samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis vide memo Ext. Ka-5. THE Public Analyst sent his report Ext. Ka-6 on 16-11-1977. THE fat contents of the milk were found to be 4.3%, non fatty solids were found to be 7.8%. Whereas the standard for cow milk as given in Appendix-B as applicable to this State was milk fat 35% and milk solid non fatty 8.5%. In this way although the fatty solids were found to be more than the prescribed limit and the non-fatty solids were found to be a bit deficient. THE sanction for prosecution was granted on 17-1- and the complaint was filed on 5-4-1978. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant on 27-7-1978. THE prosecution examined PW 1 Sri B. N. Singhal, Food Inspector, PW 2 Mahendra Singh, Sanitary Supervisor and PW 3 Bangali Mal, Food Clerk in the Nagar Mahapalika. Relying upon the prosecution case the applicant was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act and was sentenced as aforesaid. THE applicant has challenged the aforesaid order relating to his conviction and sentence.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the principal question for determination is as to whether the applicant was prejudiced on account of delay in sending the report of the Food Inspector to him. It is a fact that the sample was taken on 30-9-1977 whereas the same was sent to the Public Analyst and the report was received on 16-11-77. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 17-1-78 and the complaint was filed on 5-4-78 and the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant on 4-5-78. In this view of the matter it appears that even the complaint was lodged with an inordinate delay. I am conscious that no limitation has been Prescribed either under the Act or the Rules for filing a complaint, but it must be with utmost sincerity. Similarly, much after filing of the complaint the result of the report of the Public Analyst is alleged to have been sent to the applicant. It appears that the Food Inspector did not perform his duties with care and caution. Nothing has come in his statement to indicate as to why this inordinate delay was caused in filing the complaint and sending a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the applicant.