STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAMDAYAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMDAYAL Patel was prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under section 7 read with 18(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. The trial Court recorded acquittal vide judgment and order dated 23.11.1987 in Case No. 94/85 so registered. Against this acquittal the present appeal is directed by the State. 2. Heard the learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent, Shri P.N. Pathak.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that non -compliance of requirement of section 13(2) of the Act will not affect the prosecution case as in the present case, as required under sub -section (2) of section 13 of the Act, the report of the Public Analyst with the article of food as taken from the accused was found adulterated and was forwarded to him in the manner prescribed under Rule 9B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 9B requires for forwarding a copy of the report and the result of analysis in Form -3 to the concerned person by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate. According to him, in the present case, it was sent by registered post and, therefore, it should be taken as sufficient compliance of the law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it cannot be sufficient compliance under section 13(2) of the Act, and rule 9B of the said Rules, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the report was also forwarded or delivered by hand. The case is that it was sent by registered post and evidence on the record has established that the registered letter so sent returned back undelivered.