NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant on the basis of the complaint dated 5-2-82 was tried u/s. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial Magistrate convicted the applicant u/s. 7(1)/16(1)(a) and sentenced him to six months' RI together with fine of Rs. 1000.00 where against the applicant preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 105/84 which was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Panna on 9-6-69. The present revision is directed against the aforesaid order dated 9-6-89.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant made fivefold submissions :

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the complaint (Istagasha) dated 5-2-82 which contains the description of the documents annexed with the complaint and he submitted that it contains the list of 9 documents but the report of the Public Analyst does not form part of these 9 documents. On perusal of the Istagasha, as pointed out by the learned counsel, he is correct in point of argument that the complaint does not contain the report of the Public Analyst. Thereafter the learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to Ex. P-12 and on the basis of which, he developed his argument that the Ex. P-12 mentions for sending a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the applicant. It is a notice u/s. 3(2) of the Act. On the document, in the right, there is an endorsement regarding "Regd. Post" (In short Panjikrit). Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution has not proved that the document, mentioned in the notice was ever sent to the applicant. He submitted that the postal receipts regarding Registry have not been produced on record. So far as the prosecution is concerned, no postal receipt regarding sending of the same to the applicant has been produced on record. In the evidence also led by the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined the concerned person who has despatched the letters so as to show that he despatched the letters by registered post. The learned Govt. Advocate could not satisfy the Court as to how the fact of sending the notice to the applicant together with the report of the Public Analyst is substantiated. It is an accepted fact that there is no postal receipt regarding sending of the notice along with the report of the Public Analyst. It is also an accepted fact that the person who accepted the letter has not been examined. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has not established the sending of the report to the applicant by registered post which, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, is a mandatory requirement under the law.