STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26-10.1982 at about 11.15 A.M. at bus stop of village Dhanaula, shop of Gian Chand accused-respondent was inspected by Dr. Pardeep Kumar in the presence of Dr. M. L. Sharma. After disclosing his identity as Food Inspector, the Food Inspector purchased 660 mililitres of buffalo's milk out of 15 kilograms of milk lying in the shop which was meant for sale. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts, was put into three dry and clean bottles, which were scaled according to rules after preservative was added. One sample bottle was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst vide his report dated 7-111982 found that the sample was deficient in milk fat by 3 per cent and in milk solids not fat by 1 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard and was thus adulterated. On these allegations Gian Chand was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE contention of the respondent was that he had strained relations with Dr. M.L. Sharma and the complaint was instituted against him at his instance

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act as according to these provisions the report of the Public Analyst was to be sent to the accused after launching the prosecution and there was no obligation on the complainant to send copy of the report as soon as it was received from the Public Analyst. This contention of the learned counsel however, is net of any substance. The sample in the present case was stated to have taken on 26-10-1982 and one sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst after examining the sample prepared his report on 29-111982 and sent the same to Local Health Authority, Sangrur. It was received in the office of the Local Health Authority on 3-12-1982. As per this report the sample of milk was found deficient in milk fat as well as in milk solids not fat but still no complaint was filed, against the respondent till 20-5.1983. It was not explained as to why the respondent was not brought to trial for such a long time when he was found in possession of adulterated milk which was meant for sale. Statement of Shri Kishan PW 1 shows that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent on 25-4-1982 i.e. after a period of six months of the purchase of milk for sample. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 on receipt of the report on result of the analysis to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local Health Authority shall after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such a person informing him that if he so desired he may make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to set the sample of article of food kept by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The delay in sending copy of the report, thus, clearly prejudiced the right of the respondent to get the other sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory.