KIRANKUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1998 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar on dated 11/5/1999 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short) and sentence for six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default thereof three months R.I. passed against the applicant.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that on 27/8/1995 non-applicant food inspector after giving his introduction taken sample of Bundi Laddu from the shop of the applicant. After completing necessary formalities the sample so taken was sent to Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis Public Analyst found that the sample of Bundi Laddu contains non permitted colour Metanil Yellow and Khesari Dal also. Thereafter non- applicant food inspector after taking requisite sanction filed charge sheet against the applicant before learned Magistrate. Defence of the applicant was that he have been falsely implicated in the case. He has also taken the defence that mandatory provision of law have not been complied with and the report of the Public Analyst is vague which does not disclosed any percentage of adulteration. However, the learned trial Court after trial found the charge under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act proved and sentenced applicant as stated hereinabove. Appeal preferred by the applicant being failed, present revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Harish Kumar submitted that the mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of the Act were not complied with by the prosecution and a copy of the report Public Analyst with information regarding the right of the applicant for moving an application before the Court to get the second part of the sample examined by Central Food Laboratory, were not complied with. No report was ever forwarded to the applicant by the local health authority in the present case. He has drawn attention of this Court towards statement given by witness Food Inspector D.R. Parashar (PW-1) and witness Dilip Sharma (PW-2) in this regard.