(1.) This is a revision petition against the appellate order of Sh. S.D. Tyagi, District and Session Judge, Rohtak.
(2.) On the launching of the prosecution by Mahant Lal, Government Food Inspector, he went in to the witness box to establish the allegation and Dr. Pawan Kumar supported him. The report of the Public Analyst confirmed that the milk was adulterated. On this evidence, the petitioner's defence that the milk was indicated to be that of cow's milk for which he carried a licence could cut no ice with the Courts below. The trial Court imposed on him sentence of six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default three months' R.I. which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.
(3.) The only point raised by Mr. I.S. Balhara, Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is patent infraction of Rule 9-A of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Thereunder the Local Health Authority was required, after the institution of the prosecution, to immediately forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis in from III, delivered to him under sub rule 3 of rule 7, by registered post, or by hand, as was appropriate to the petitioner for whom the sample of the article of food was taken by the food Inspector. According to the learned counsel no such report was ever sent by the Local Health Authority. On ground that it is contended that record is totally silent and the valuable right which was available to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 had been destroyed on the neglect of the said authority. That section provides that not only the afore-referred report is to be sent to the culprit but further he was to be informed that if he so desires he could make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of food, kept by the Local Health Authority, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.