JAMEEL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 28/06/1984 passed by the Shri Sushil Kumar, the then Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1984 whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused-revisionist in Criminal Case No. 1139/9/83 under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 3-2-1984 by Shri J. C. Misra, the then Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences), Muzaffarnagar sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 7(1), 16(i)((a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the Food Inspector Sri M.P. Singh on 29-11-1980 at about 8.15 a.m. took sample of mixed milk of cow and buffalo which was being offered for sale by the accused revisionist in front of Soliders Board building within Muzaffarnagar, that the Food Inspector took, the sample performed the formalities and the report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample was deficient by 9% in fat and by 15% in non-fatty solids. Thereafter, the Food Inspector submitted a report to the local health authority who granted the sanction and complaint was filed. The case came up for trial and ended in conviction and then a remand was made by the lower appellate Court and after it, the case was tried summarily and the conviction was made again on 3-2-1984 by the trial Court and the appeal, having been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffar-nagar, the present revision has been filed in this Court.

(3.) In this revision, the learned counsel for the accused revisionist has argued that there was non-compliance of Rule 7(3) framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which obliges the public analyst to deliver to the Local (Health) Authority a report of the result of analysis of the sample sent to him with a period of fortyfive days from the date of receipt of the sample for analysis. It has been pointed out that in this case, the sample was received by the public analyst on 2-12-1980 and it was examined by it on 5-1-1981 and that its report reached in the office of the Chief Medical Officer concerned on 24-1-1981 which was beyond 45 days. It has been argued that this provision is mandatory. The legal position in this regard is that the provisions prescribing period of 45 days in Rule 7(3) is not mandatory on account of such delay and substantial compliance is sufficient. In this regard, reference, may be made to the case of T.V. Usman v. Food Inspector Tellicherry Municipality, Tellicherry reported in AIR 1994 SC 1818. That being so, this point as such cannot be of help the accused revisionist.