(1.) IN this criminal revision, Ginna Ram petitioner assails his conviction under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short,the Act). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Karnal, sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, in his judgment, remarkable both for its exhaustiveness and lucidity, repelling the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, not only upheld his conviction but affirmed his sentence.
(2.) IT is unnecessary to delineate the facts in any great detail. On October 21, 1978, at about 9 a.m. the petitioner being a milk vendor was found in possession of 25 Kgs. of unvindicated milk contained in 2 drums loaded on his bicycle for public sale wherefrom a sample was duly taken by Meg Nath, Government Food Inspector in the presence of DR. J.S. Sohi and Rajendar Singh. The sample of milk sent to the Public Analyst was found to be below the prescribed standard under the Act. Thereafter the petitioner was brought to trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.
(3.) THE only argument which has been laboured with little persistence on behalf of the petitioner was that Section 13(2) of the Act was not complied with because the report of the Public Analyst was not given to him and he was denied the opportunity of sending the sample of milk to the Central Food Laboratory. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on three decision of this Court in Crl. Revision No. 216 of 1980, Janak Raj v. The State of Punjab, decided by S.S. Sodhi, J. on July 9, 1982; Crl. Revision No. 730 of 1980 Chand Roop v. The State of Haryana, decided by M.M. Punchhi, J. on July 27, 1982 and Crl. Revision No. 787 of 1980, Ram Chander v. The State of Haryana decided by M.M. Punchhi; J, on August 18,1982. This contention does credit to the ingenuity of the learned counsel for the petitioner but does not seem to bear scrutiny of a close logical analysis. I have perusal the record and I find that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was despatched to the petitioner as shown by a copy of the letter, Exhibit P.F., and also postal receipt, Exhibit P.G. Reading Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, together, the inference seems to be inevitable that the duty which has been cast upon the Local (Health) Authority is to forward a copy of the report and the result of analysis along with an intimation by registered post or by hand to the person from whom the sample has been taken. A letter sent under registered post is presumed to have been received by the addressee. It is true that this presumption is not irrebutable but so far as the prosecution is concerned, the burden cast upon it under law, would be deemed to have been discharged, as soon as the report and the intimation are sent under registered cover. In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that the report and intimation were in fact forwarded to the petitions it must in the ordinary course, have been received by him. To repeat again, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary such an inference is not only justified on facts but also in law. Section 13(2) of the Act was, therefore, complied with an the petitioner had to thank himself because he could not send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Thus the only point raised in this revision must be rejected. It is needless to refer to the aforesaid three decisions because the ratio there of is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.