MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, Mohan Lal, petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 or the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1934 (for short, the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fairdabad, vide his order dated September 1, 1981. sentenced him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000/ -. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, while upholding his conviction, reduced his sentence of imprisonment to one year. The sentence of fine with its default clause, was however maintained.

(2.) THE broad outline of the prosecution case is that on March 28, 1978, M. L Kapoor, Govt. Food Inspector alongwith Dr. S. P. Tyagi visited the factory of the petitioner and purchased 750 mls of ice -cream for analysis from him. The simple of ice -cream sent to the Public Analyst was subsequently found to be adulterated. The case against the petitioner primarily rests on the testimony of M. L. Kapoor, Govt. Food Inspector and Dr. S P. Tyagi. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case. Charanjit Singh and Gabbar Singh were examined by him in defence.

(3.) THE only point pressed upon me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is contravention of the provisions of Section 13 (2B) of the Act. According to him, the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory Ghaziabad was not sent to the court within one month from the receipt of the sample and therefore the petitioner was entitled to acquittal on this short ground alone. There appears to be substance in his contention. The trial court on the prayer of the petitioner sent the sample of the ice -cream to the Director, Central Food Laboratory on October. 21, 1978. The report of the Director is dated November, 23, 1978. The report was made within 32 days of the receipt of sample. This shows that the sample was analysed after one month and 2 days or its receipt by the Laboratory. It has been rightly argued that under Section 13(2B) of the Act. it was mandatory on the part of the Director to analyse the sample and send his report to the Court within one month from the date of the receipt of the sample. This mandatory provision not having been complied with the petitioner is entitled to take benefit of the contravention of the provision.