MURAHARI RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point which arises in this revision is as to what is the interpretation of the phrase "after the institution of prosecution". In order to appreciate this point, it is necessary to state some facts.

(2.) The second accused, who is the petitioner before me is, a retail vendor of food articles and he purchased from the wholesale dealer, A-1, under Bill No. 2, dated 28-6-1983, and that the said bill was warranty. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and after complying with all the formalities mentioned in the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, took 3 samples in 3 dry, clean and empty bottles, sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis and the other two bottles to the local (Health) Authority. On receipt of the report of the public analyst, complaint was filed against the petitioner and A-1 on 27-8-1983. Tt was returned on 8-9-1983 for complying with certain requisitions. It was represented again on 12-9-1983 and was taken on file by the Magistrate on 15-9-1983. The public analyst report was served on the petitioner on 29-8-1983. After the Magistrate took the complaint on file, summons was served on the petitioner on 17-9-1983. He then filed a petition u/s 13 (2) of the PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954, 1954 on 23-9-1983 to sent one of the sample bottles, "which were kept with the local (Health) Authority, to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Mysore. The lower court dismissed this petition holding that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Rules, Hence, this revision.

(3.) Mr. Bali Reddy, the learned advocate appearning on behalf of the petitioner (A-2 "in the case) submits that no doubt the complaint was filed on 27-8-1983, but it was returned on 8-9-1983, from which it should be concluded that there was no complaint at all until it was taken on file by the Magistrate on 15-9-1983. Tn other words, what the learned advocate submits is that the "institution of prosecution", means that the Magistrate should apply his mind and then take on file the complaint, then it will mean that the proceedings have been instituted against the accused person, which in the instant case was on 15-9-1983 and the petitioner filed the petition on 23-9-1983 to send the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Mvsore and it was within the time as contemplated under the Rules. Rule 9-A of the Rules framed under the PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 provided "the Loeal (Health) Authority shall, immediately after the institution of prosecution, forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in form III delivered to him under sub-rule (8) of Rule 7 by "registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector". Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides: "On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-sec. (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, forward in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them, may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory". A close reading of this section would go to show that it is only after the institution of prosecution, the local (Health) authority will be in a position to send the report of the result of the analysis which the Local Food Authority has received before the institution of prosecution and this report will be sent to the accused after the institution of prosecution and the accused will file a petition in the court, if he so desired, within a period of ten days from the date of reciept of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the local (Health) Authority, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In other words, so far as Sec. 13 (2) of the Act is concerned, the following steps have got to be noted. 1. The receipt of the result of the analysis. 2. After the institution of prosecution. 3. The Local (Health) Authority must send the report of the analyst to the accused person as prescribed, either by registered post or by hand.