(1.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a copy of the report of the result of the analysis made by the Public Analyst was not furnished to the petitioner in compliance with subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act. The contention is devoid of substance. Both the lower Courts, believing the Food Inspector Mukutsingh (P.W. 1) and the postal acknowledgement Ex. p-6, have held that it was duly forwarded to the petitioner by registered post and the same was received by him on 9-9-1979 as per the acknowledgement Ex. p-6. The finding is one of fact and needs no interference in revision. The only other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was delay in forwarding the copy to the petitioner. The prosecution was instituted on 23-7-1979. The copy was delivered to the petitioner by registered post on 9-9-1979 vide the postal acknowledgement Ex. p. 6. Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules requires the copy to be sent immediately" after institution of the prosecution. The expression "immediately" was explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Tulsiram Vs. State of M.P., 1985 FAJ 40 Accordingly, it is used to convey a sense of continuity rather than a sense of urgency. It is not to be understood to mean the very next moment, the very next hour, that very day or the very next day. In the context, the expression is only meant to convey "reasonable despatch and promptitude' and no more, the idea being to avoid dilatoriness on the part of the office and prevention of unnecessary harassment to the accused. The idea is not to penalise the prosecution and to provide a technical defence. The real question is whether the Public Analyst's report was sent to the accused sufficiently early to enable him to properly defend himself by giving him an opportunity at the outset to apply to the Court to send one of the samples to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Evidence was recorded in the case on 4-8-1981. Therefore, the petitioner had sufficient time and opportunity after receipt of the copy on 9-9-1979, to file an application under section 13(2) of the Act for getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. He never sought to make such an application. In that connection, the following observations made by their Lordships are noteworthy.
(2.) It follows that the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of substances. No other point has been argued or pressed.
(3.) In the result, therefore, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.