STATE OF M P Vs. TRILOKCHANDRA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionery, Ambikapur is a Firm of which Trilokchandra, the respondent, is the proprietor. The Firm is manufacturing Lemondrops. The Local (Health) Authority Ex. Officio Director Food and Drug Administration Ambikapur found the said Lemondrops displayed for sale. He asked for the licence for selling the said Lemondrops, relating to the year 1984-85 but the same was not produced. The said Lemondrops were found doubtful having been mixed with colour and as such samples of the said Lemondrops were taken by the said Officer after completing the formalities. The quantity of the samples were 900 grms. and were purchased for Rs. 5.85 receipt whereof was also issued. Samples obtained were divided into three parts and were sealed in the polythin packets. One of the samples was sent to the public Analyst and the public Analyst submitted the report. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the prosecution filed a complaint against the respondent Trilokchandra Goyal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur for having committed the offence u/S. 2(1), 7(1), 7(3), 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The trial Court framed the charges levelled against him. The prosecution examined D. P. Gupta, Food Inspector as P.W. 1, and Basant Kumar Channe, a clerk in the office of the Deputy Director of Food and Drug Administration Ambikapur as P.W. 2. Before the trial Court, the question for consideration were two-fold; (1) whether in the year 1984-85 there was any prohibition on the sale of Lemon Drops, without valid permission : and (2) whether the said Lemondrops were fit for sale for human consumption and were of prescribed standards. So far as the first question is concerned, the trial Court sentenced the respondent under Rule 50 of the Rules, 1955 r/w Rules 5 of the Madhya Pradesh prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and was also saddled with a liability of fine of Rs. 50.00 as far as this aspect is concerned, the appellant has nothing to say.

(3.) Now comes the second question. The appeal is confined only to the second point. In this case, the matter is circumscribed to this point and the facts have a peripheral relevance. The relevant question for consideration is whether the prosecution has complied with the requirement of S. 13(2) of the Act r/w Rule 9-A of the Rules, 1955. Section 13(2) requires that 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 persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed u/S. 14-A, 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 persons, as the case may be, that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of 10 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. In the present case, P.W. 2 Basant Kumar Channe is the witness who has been examined by the prosecution as P.W. 2. It has been stated that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent on 1-12-84 by registered post and the postal receipt No. 1882 dated 1-12-84 has been brought on record as Ex. P-16. In the present case the report was sent by registered post and there is presumption u/S. 27 of the General Clauses Act (Central) which provision is extracted below :-