SUGHAR SINGH Vs. STATE & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 30.07.1991 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act) Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1991 (Sughar Singh Vs. State and one another) whereby the Appeal has been dismissed and the judgement and order dated 28.01.1991 passed by the then Second Addl. Munsif Magistrate (Economic Offences), Etawah passed in Criminal Case No. 759 of 1990 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, Sughar Singh under Section 7 / 16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be referred in short as Act) to undergo R.I. for six months, fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine one month's S.I. has been confirmed.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The Chief Food Inspector, B.L. Bharti made an inspection on 22.05.1982 at 9 a.m. at Jawahar Road, Bharthana and found that accused Sughar Singh was selling milk. On suspicion of the milk being adulterated, he gave his introduction to the accused and provided him notice in form No. VI (Exhibit Ka 1) disclosing the purpose of taking sample. The 660 ml. milk was purchased by him from the accused at the rate of rupees 1.75/- and obtained a receipt of it from the accused which is exhibit Ka-2. The said milk was divided in three equal parts by him as per rules. It was filled up in three clean dry bottles, which were sealed. In all these bottles code seals were pasted, which were signed by the C.M.O, Etawah. Three copies of the memorandum were prepared, a copy of which (Exhibit Ka 5) is on record of the file. One bottle out of the said sealed bottles, with memorandum Form No. 7 was sent to Public Analyst by registered post and a copy of the memorandum along with seal impression was also sent by registered post to Public Analyst, receipts of which are Exhibit Ka-3 and Exhibit Ka-4. After the test/analysis was made by the Public Analyst, report No. V(A)583 dated 12.06.1982 was received according to which, the sample was found 2.2% less in milk fat and 7% deficient in milk solids non-fats, hence the same was found adulterated according to standard prescribed. A copy of the same is Exhibit Ka-6. According to report, the said sample was declared adulterated under section 2(ia)(m) of the Act. Thereafter, the Food Inspector had given an application for sanctioning prosecution, annexing therewith all the papers connected with these samples which is Exhibit Ka-7. The C.M.O. after having perused papers, gave prosecution sanction against the accused person under section 20 of the Act. Post obtaining sanction, the Food Inspector prepared a complaint and lodged the same through C.M.O. in court which is Exhibit Ka-9. After the filing of complaint, the accused was sent notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on his given address by registered post which is Exhibit Ka-10 and the postal receipts are Exhibit Ka 11 and Exhibit Ka-12. From the side of the prosecution, the Food Inspector, Sri B.L. Bharti was examined as PW-1 and Sri R.S. Yadav was examined as PW 2. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he took the plea of false implication and stated that the witnesses had deposed against him due to enmity but did not lead any evidence in defence. Before the Learned Magistrate, it was argued that the prosecution did not comply with the provisions under Section 13(2) of the Act as the report of the analyst was not sent to the accused appellant. The said argument was over-ruled by the learned magistrate holding that P.W.2 had clearly stated in his statement that the accused appellant had been sent a copy of the Public Analyst Report by registered post. Further it was argued from the side of defence that the sample of the accused was not sent to the Central Food Lab, because of which he deserves to be acquitted but the learned Magistrate disagreed with the said argument because the accused had moved application No. 14-Ka on 23.6.1987 for calling for report from Central Food Lab while the sample was taken on 22.5.1982. The accused had already appeared before Court on 19.10.1983, therefore, it was held that his not moving an application between 1983 to 1987 was sufficient to indicate that he did not want to get the sample tested by Central Food Lab. He did not move an application in this regard by appearing before court. The application dated 23.7.1987 given by him was moved after much delay, upon consideration of which the court ordered that the accused shall deposit Rs. 40 through 'challan' within 7 days failing which his application would be treated as rejected. Despite that the accused did not deposit the said amount and as a result of that no further action could be taken in that regard. In these circumstances, the court held that no prejudice would be taken to have been caused to the accused under section 13 (2) of the Act.