BHAGABAN DAS AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) MR . Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted only one point without arguing on the other facts on merit. His only contention is that the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the Petitioner as provided under Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and, as such the prosecution is bad and the conviction is to be set aside.

(3.) IN the result, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.