ALTAF Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sample of milk was collected by the Food Inspector on 28-12-1978 at 7,15 a.m. from the revisionist Altaf and after completion of all the formalities prescribed by law and rules, one of the parts of sample was sent to public analyst who found the sample to deficient in respect of milk fat to the extent of 25% and non-fatty solids to the extent of 36%, as per report dated 10-2-1979. After necessary sanction for prosecution, the Food Inspector filed complaint against the revisionist in the Court of Magistrate on 12-7-1979. On trial, the Magistrate concerned convicted the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00. He was to suffer further imprisonment for three months in case of default in payment of fine. Such judgment was passed by the Magistrate concerned on 30-4-1981. Aggrieved, the revisionist before this Court preferred Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1981 which was decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Nainital on 2-7-1984. The appeal failed and conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate came to be confirmed. Against the judgment of the Appellate Court passed in the said appeal On 2-7-1984, the accused Altaf preferred this criminal revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist/accused and the learned A.G.A. representing the State respondent.

(3.) There are two principle arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist. In the first instance, it has been urged that there was delay of seven months in sending the copy of the report of public analyst to the accused and because of such inordinate delay, there is violation of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the accused/revisionist has been deprived of his valuable right to get another part of the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. It has been pointed out that occurrence took place on 28-12-1978; the public analyst gave his report dated 10-2-1979; the complaint was filed on 12-7-1979 and the copy of the report of public analyst was sent to the accused revisionist on 28-7-1978. Reliance in this regard has been placed from the side of revisionist on the following three rulings Kalloo v. State of U.P. 1996 (33) All Cri C 10, J.P. Chaturvedi v. The State of U.P., 1997 (34) All Cri C 444 and S.P. Agrawal v. State of U.P., 1997 (33) All Cri C 513 : (1997 All LJ 2142).