LALIT DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.3.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia in CR Case No.1657 1997 convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to suffer simple imprisonment for sk months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to further Simple Imprisonment for one month more and the judgment and order dated 3.5.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the Appeal No.7 (2) of 1999 preferred by the revision petitioner against the aforesaid judgment.

(2.) I have heard Mr.K.Agarwal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. SK Lahkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

(3.) Shri Agarwalla, learned counsel at the very first instance argued that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst in violation of the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and as such, conviction cannot be sustained. In support of this contention he has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameswar Dayal vs. State of UP reported in (1995) Suppl 4 SCC 659. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, held that non-supply of the report deprived the accused of his valuable right to get the sample examined by the Central Laboratory and, on that ground, the conviction and sentence of the accused were set aside. In the instant case, however, the report was send by registered post and the postal receipt is available on record. Ext 18 is the copy of the notice under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Ext 19 is the postal receipt. The Food Inspector also in his evidence stated that the notice was sent. The suggestion given by him in this behalf has been denied. A presumption in the given circumstances can be drawn that notice issued by Registered AD Post was served on the revision petitioner That apart, the revision petitioner on receipt of the summon appeared before the Court, but did not apply before the Court for sending the other part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analysis It would, therefore, be impermissible to conclude that the petitioner has been prejudiced in his defence Moreover, the provisions of section 13 (2) read with Rule 9 (j) of the Rules of 1955 clearly indicate that non-compliance of the aforeeaid provisions are not mandatory and, therefore, will not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown to have been caused. The decision in Khem Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1994 CrlLJ 253 does not help the revision for the same reason.