RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the trial court. In default of payment of fine, lie is to undergo further three months' R. I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. Hence this revision.

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

(3.) THE next point argued by the applicant's counsel is that there has been no compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. No such ground of revision has been taken in this court. From the statement of Pooran Chandra Sharma (P. W. 2) clerk of the Chief Medical Officer's office supported by the statement of H. C. Joshi, Food Inspector (P. W. 1), it is fully established that the report as well as the intimation under Section 13 (2) of the P. F. Act was sent to the accused on 13th April, 1978, after the prosecution has been launched. It is also clear from the intimation Ex. Ka 11 that all the details which are required under Section 13 (2) including the name of the court and the right of the accused to apply within 10 days of the receipt of the report to the Local Health Authority for sending the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, if the accused so desires, have been mentioned therein. A copy of each of the two reports were sent along with this intimation on 13th April, 1978. Counsel for the applicant has tried to argue that the case was registered on 16th April, 78 and therefore, there has been non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This argument does not appeal to me at all. If there was some delay by the clerk concerned in the office in registering the case, it does not mean that the compliant was not filed on 13th Aprils 1978. Moreover no such argument was raised, no such ground of revision was taken and no such challenge on facts was thrown to the witnesses, who have been produced to prove compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In my opinion there has been full compliance of this rule and intimation was duly sent along with the report to the accused after the institution of the prosecution.