LALLU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lallu, revisionist was convicted under S.7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo three months R.I. by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. Against this order he preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Lallu has now preferred this present revision.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 29-12-1977 Lallu revisionist was found carrying milk in a milk can for sale. The Food Inspector S.K. Varma purchased sample of milk from him. It was described by the revisionist as a mixed milk of cow and buffalo. The Food Inspector paid the price of the sample and obtained receipt from him. He divided the sample into three parts; put it in three phials separately after adding formal in preservative; sealed them and completed other formalities. He sent one phial to the public analyst for analysis and report. The public analyst submitted his report on 10-2-1978 that the milk was adulterated. The Food Inspector thereafter obtained sanction and filed the complaint on 28-10-1978. He sent notice along with the copy of the report and the result of the analysis to the revisionist and on 9-4-1979 the revisionist applied for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. On his request the sample was sent to that laboratory and the Director reported on 16-6-1979 that the sample was adulterated. On behalf of the prosecution S.K. Verma Food Inspector was examined as P.W. 1 and three witnesses in support of the prosecution case. One of them is Dr. V.N. Srivastava (P.W. 2) who is the Chief Medical Officer. He proved sanction for the prosecution. Shahzad (P.W. 3) is the Peon of the Food Inspector. He was examined to support the prosecution story. Rahmatullah (P.W. 4) is the Clerk of the Local Health Authority who proved the despatch of the report of the public analyst to the revisionist. The revisionist admitted the taking of sample by the Food Inspector from him. He, however, denied that any price was paid for the same to him. It was admitted by him that it was a mixed milk of cow and buffalo. He, however, pleaded not guilty. He did not give any evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. In appeal several points were pressed on behalf of the revisionist but they did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge with the result the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) In revision the learned counsel for the revisionist pressed only one point. It is that the sample for analysis was sent to the Central Food Laboratory after much delay and the sample was examined in the Central Food Laboratory about 18 months after taking of the sample. He further argued in this connection that on account of lapse of this period of about 18 months, the sample must have deteriorated and would not have remained in fit condition for analysis. The report of Director of Central Food Laboratory was not, therefore, acceptable and the delay in examination of the sample caused prejudice and, thus, the trial stands vitiated. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand argued that there was no unreasonable delay in the case; the revisionist himself is partly responsible for the delay because notice was given to him about the report of the public analyst on 15-11-1978 but he did not apply for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory soon after the receipt of the notice and applied after a lapse of more than four months, after the receipt of the notice. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the State that the Director Central Food Laboratory found the sample in fit condition for analysis and as such it is not open for the learned counsel for the revisionist to argue that the sample must have deteriorated by lapse of time and as such prejudice has been caused to the revisionist. Having carefully considered the relevant provisions and the arguments advanced and the material placed on record I am of the opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist must prevail.