DEVISINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Patne, counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in the present case the report of the public analyst was dispatched to the petitioner by the Local (health) authority through the messenger instead of sending it by the registered post. He submitted that on account of that the petitioner was prevented from exercising his right which has been conferred on him by virtue of section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for convenience) and therefore the trial has been vitiated.

(2.) SHRI Verma Dy. GA appearing for the State submitted that it is not so. The learned appellate Court has opined keeping in view the evidence on record and the circumstances of the present matter that the said report of the public analyst was sent to the petitioner by the local (health) authority, before the commencement of the trial and after the commencement of the trial petitioner did not move an application for making a request to the Court to send the sample which has been deposited in the Court or the sample which was in the custody of local (health) authority, to the central laboratory for necessary analysis. The appellate Court in view of that non -exercise of that right under section 13(2) of the Act declared that the petitioner did not want to exercise that right of his, for analysis of the remaining samples through the central laboratory whose report would have been final. Rule 9A of the rules framed under the Act in 1955, used a words "the local (health) authority" shall within 10 days after the institution of prosecution, forward a copy of the report and the result of analysis in form No. III delivered to him under sub -rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand, and may inform to the person from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food Inspector and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars has been disclosed." Therefore, no illegality has been caused on account of the act on the part of local (health) authority in sending the report of the public analyst through its peon. The appellate Court is right in concluding that way and dismissing the submissions of the petitioner on that point.

(3.) SHRI Verma submitted that there is no need of reducing the sentence. The legal precedent cannot be accepted as a general rule because each and every judgment is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the matter of State of M.P. v. Nanhelal (supra) there has been an observation of the Court that the accused had stopped the business which gave rise to the said prosecution. In the matter of Majid Khan v. State (supra) the judgment shows that the Court found that the accused suffered constant mental anguish and also suffered monetary loss during the pendency of the proceedings. There is no material available for the purpose of concluding that way so far as the present case is concerned. The petitioner who was 20 years old when the petition was filed, which must have been soon after the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction and sentence against him. It means that at the time of conviction he was well matured.