AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted u/Sections 7/16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to six months RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has also argued in this connection that even if Rule 22 is held to be mandatory, yet the inadequate quantity which has been supplied for analysis is not sufficient for the Public Analyst to give a correct report thereon. He submits that unless the full quantity is sent, it would not be sufficient for him to analyse the sample properly and to give a correct report. There is nothing in the report of the Public Analyst to indicate that the quantity of the sample which was sent to him was inadequate for him to proceed with the analysis. It was open to the applicant, if he admitted the correctness of the report of the Public Analyst, to summon him and to cross-examine him on this question. This right, which has been given to him under the Act, has however not been availed by him. Therefore, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the quantity which was sent for analysis was sufficient for the purpose for which it has been sent. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the report of the Public Analyst can not be overruled on account of this objection taken by the applicant's counsel.