(1.) THE petitioner Amar Chand was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garshankar on 14th of June, 1977 under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment to six months. His appeal having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on the 25th May, 1978, he has now come up in revision on the ground that on 28.10.76 Shri B.M. Bhargava, Incharge, Civil Dispensary, Mahillpur, having the powers of Food Inspector was present near the Octroi Post, Nawanshahar road. At that time, Dr. Sukhdev Singh and one Sarat Singh were also present with him. The petitioner who was a milk vendor arrived there on a cycle carrying milk in a drum for sale. Shri B.M. Bhargava purchased 560 mls of milk from him on a payment of Rs. 1.05 for the purpose of analysis and sent one of the sample bottles to the Public Analyst who has given the opinion that the sample was Adulterated in as much as it was deficient in solids no fat content to the extent of 5%.
(2.) IT has been contended before me that the trial and the conviction are vitiated in that the Food Inspector has failed to comply with section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination by me is whether non compliance with the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the Act vitiates the entire proceedings. In considering that question, I have to find out first of all whether the provisions contained in Sec. 13(2) of the Act are directory in nature or mandatory.
(3.) THEREFORE , in my view, the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory and non -compliance with the provisions of this Section would vitiate the entire proceedings. Hence this criminal revision petition is allowed and the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence imposed upon him are set aside and the petitioner acquitted of the offence. Fine, if paid will be refunded.