PARMA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, dismissing the appeal of Parma Nand against his conviction under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed on him.

(2.) THE salient facts are that on 25th May, 1979, sample of barfi of Besan was duly taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of Parma Nand. One of the samples was sent to the public Analyst who found the same unfit for human consumption. After complying with the prescribed procedure. Parma Nand was challaned. At the trial, he denied the incriminating allegations against him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for Parma Nand has assailed his conviction on the ground that the mandatory provisions of section 13 (2) of the above -said Act were not complied with, inasmuch as, the report of the Public Analyst sent to him was not accompanied by the letter, copy of which is Exhibit P. F. stating therein : "A copy of the result of Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh of your adulterated sample No. 189/RD/79. dt. 25.9.79 seized by Food Inspector Sh. R. D. Goel G.F.I. Hissar is being sent to you for your information and if you so desire you make application to the court within period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local Health Authority Hissar, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The case has been launched on 27.10.79 in the Court of Shri K. C. Gupta, C. J. M. Hissar and is fixed for 22.11.1979." Support is sought from the fact that report of the Public Analyst is dated 17th October, 1979. The Acknowledgement Due form typed in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Hissar, bears date 27th October, 1979. The postal seal on the said form is dated 29th October, 1979. The cumulative effect of these circumstances is that it was report of the Public Analyst alone which was despatched to Parma Nand and received by him. That letter copy whereof is Exhibit P. F. did not accompany the said report is further proved by the date 29th October, 1979, on Exhibit P. F. Another circumstance pressed into service was that in the nature of things, the registered A. D. could be served on Parma Nand on the very date (29.10.1979) of its despatch. For the foregoing reasons, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the mandatory provision of section 13 (2) of the Act has been complied with. As regards the consequence thereof, learned counsel for Parma Nand cited Amir Chand v. The State, 1981 P.L.R. 216 : laying down that in such a situation, the entire proceedings vitiate.