IMMADI RAMACHANDRAM Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petitioner's petition to the extent of recalling P.W. 1 and cross-examining him only on the question of supply of copy of the report of the Public Analyst before filing the complaint. He, directed the recalling of P.W. 1 in the light of this Court's observation in Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu, 1975 (2) APLJ (HC) 145. Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules reads as follows :

(2.) Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read as follows :

(3.) In Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu, (1975) 2 APLJ (HC) 145 the trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on several grounds including the ground of the Food Inspector not having furnished the accused with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The accused in that case pleaded that he was prejudiced in his defence by the non-supply of a copy of the Analyst's report to the effect that the sample of the Food taken from him was adulterated. He asserted before the trial court that if a copy of the Report of the Public Analyst was furnished to him by the Food Inspector as required under Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, he would have applied to the court under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and got the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory in proof of his plea that the Food in question was not adulterated. On appeal by the State against the order of acquittal, this court confirmed the order of acquittal observing that Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory and that the accused therein was denied the salutary safeguard provided under the Rules. In the absence of any proof of prejudice by the accused on account of the non-compliance of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, it could not be proper for the court to throw out the prosecution case only on account of the non-compliance. By itself the mere non-compliance with Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules does not enable the accused for a presumption that he has been prejudiced thereby. In cases of non-compliance with rule 9(j) the courts have to see whether the accused has been prejudiced in his defence by such non-compliance; it would be a question of fact in each case.