JADGISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 16(1)-(a)(i)read Sec. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default further simple imprisonment for 4 months.

(2.) The facts found are that on 9-11-1980, Food Inspector Pasha visited the shop of the applicant and took a sample of Jalebi by purchasing 600 grams on paying the price of Rs. 6.00. The sample was divided in three parts and each part was separately sealed. A punchanama was prepared. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst and two other samples were sent to the Public Health Authority. The Public Analyst found that the sample contained coal tar dye which was not a permissible colouring material and so it was adulterated. The Court below relying on the evidence of Food Inspector Pasha (P.W. 1) corroborated by Panch Garyaram (P. W. 2) and the documentary evidence found the case against the applicant proved beyond doubt. The contention that there was no compliance with Rules 17 and 22 was not accepted and besides it was held that these rules were directory and not mandatory. However, here it is contended that there is no compliance of Sec. 13(2) and Rule 9-A inasmuch as a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the applicant immediately after instituting the prosecution against him. On the present case, a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant on 20-6-80, while the prosecution was launched on 30-6-80 which means a copy of the report was sent 10 days earlier to the launching of the prosecution. It has been held by this Court in Devideen Vs. State of M.P. (1976 Cr. Rs.J. M.P. Short Note 201 ) that the provisions are mandatory and the sending of a report immediately after the launching of the prosecution means, a copy of the report has to be sent forthwith. There is no compliance by sending a copy of the report earlier to the launching of the prosecution, because under Sec. 13(2), the accused has to apply within 10 days of the receipt of the report to the Magistrate for analysis. Reliance has also been placed on another decision of other High Court. Evidently there is no compliance with Sec. 13(2) and Rule 9-A and as such the conviction is vitiated.

(3.) Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the applicant arc set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The fine, if paid, be refunded to the applicant. Revision allowed.