TULSIRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the revision of the accused Tulsiram who, on his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16(l)(a)(i) on the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has been sentenced to six months RI and to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine, to further undergo four months RI.

(2.) On 17-8-1979, the Food Inspector had purchased the sample of Soyabean Oil, for analysis, from the applicant-accused, the owner of the particular grocery-shop. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found it as not conforming to the prescribed standard, inasmuch as, cotton-seed oil was found present in the sample (Ex. P-7). The applicant-accused, on being prosecuted, abjured the guilt. He denied to have sold any sample of Soyabean oil. He equally denied to have received the copy of the Public Analysts report any time. The trial Court held that the copy of the Public Analysts report had been duly forwarded to the applicant-accused as per the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules made there under. Since, the sample was found adulterated, the applicant accused was convicted and sentenced to the extent as stated at the outset. The appeal, though preferred, was dismissed; and hence, now, the present revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant accused has assailed the conviction on certain legal points. In the first place, it is canvassed that Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter referred to as Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory. It is, next, urged that the expression immediately used in Rule 9-A is rigid in its implication, connoting atonce or forthwith or without delay; and as such, the copy of the Public Analysts report, having not been immediately forwarded to the applicant-accused after the institution of the prosecution there was dear violation of the tenor of Rule 9-A read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, entitling, thus, the applicant-accused to acquittal. Decisions cited in support, are Sabastian v. State1 Chand Roop v. State of Haryana2, State of Maharashtra v. Tukaram Baburao Mane3, K. V. Kunaappa v. The Food Inspector, Kannapuram Panchyyat4, Perumal and another v. Kumbakonam Municipality5, Ashok Trading Co. Katni v. Municipal Council, Katni6 and Devideen v. State of M.P.7. In the same connection it is also pressed that the applicant-accused had not actually received the copy of the Public Analysts report with the requisite advance intimation regarding the exercise of his right for further analysis of the other sample by the Central Food Laboratory, as enjoined by Rule 9-A read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has repelled the arguments advanced on the promise that Rule 9-A has to be held to be directory in nature, in the light of the dictum laid down in the recent Supreme Court Case Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal8 which, though relates to the object and scope of the old Rule 9(j), is equally applicable in full measure for assessing the nature of the present Rule 9-A.