RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1984.

(2.) THE facts are few and simple. The first appellant Rajendra, on 30th June, 1982, while running a shop under the name and style of M/s. Kumarvad Bros. in Khargaon Municipality, was found exhibiting and offering for sale tea dust, the quantity of which was about 1} kgs. D.P. Nath, PW -1, the Food Inspector for Khargaon purchased tea dust in the requisite quantity for test. The purchased tea was dealt with in the prescribed manner as per rules on the subject. The purchase and other attendant documents were witnessed by Madan, PW -2 and another.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Magistrate the facts as alleged by the prosecution regarding sale by the first appellant to the Food Inspector and of the article of food being adulterated as per report of the Public Analyst were not disputed. Shelter, however, was taken behind the provisions of rules 7(3) and 9 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as then standing, whereunder the Public Analyst was required to send his report to the Local Health Authority within 45 days, which he had not done, and the Local Health Authority was required to 'immediately' after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the appellants. Since there was delay of nearly a month on that count the trial Magistrate viewed this lapse as fatal to the prosecution. Furthermore, the trial magistrate took the view that in the covering letter while sending the report, nowhere had the appellants been told that they had a right to have the second sample with the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory in terms of section 13(2) of the Act. The trial Magistrate perhaps had in mind that had this been mentioned, the appellants may have chosen to avail of the opportunity of the analysis by Central Food Laboratory and such report would have superseded the report of the Public Analyst, whether for or against the appellants. On these two grounds the learned trial Magistrate recorded acquittal of the appellants. The High Court on appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, reversed the order of acquittal and recorded conviction of the appellants and sentenced each one of them to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each. This has occasioned the appeal before us.