AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Singh petitioner was convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Jind. On appeal the conviction and sentence were maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, hence this revision.

(2.) THE Food Inspector on 25.2.1982 collected for the purpose of analysis a sample of red chilly powder from the shop of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the Public Analyst. The sample was received by the Public Analyst on 1.3.1982. The Public Analyst delivered the report Exhibit PD signed by him on 31.3.1982. On the basis of the report that the sample was adulterated, the Food Inspector instituted a complaint against the petitioner on 29.4.1982.

(3.) THE only point strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Public Analyst had not delivered the report to the Local Health Authority within the stipulated period of 45 days as provided under rule 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, the Rules) and that non -compliance with this mandatory provision is fatal to the prosecution. Mr. M.R. Verma, Advocate, appearing for the State, however, has contended that there is evidence to show that the report was signed by the Public Analyst on 31.3.1982 and the complaint was filed on 29.4.1982. The sample, undoubtedly, was received by the Public Analyst on 1.3.1982. According to him, in the normal course of things it should be presumed that the report of the Public Analyst must have been received by the Local Health Authority, Jind, within 45 days. It is impossible to proceed on presumption in criminal cases. The burden of proving that the Public Analyst had forwarded his report and received by the Local Authority within 15 days of the receipt of the sample, is on the prosecution. It is not open to the courts to raise presumptions for filling the gaps in the prosecution case. There is not a little of evidence on record to show that the report was forwarded by the Public Analyst within 45 days. It is a clear case of non -compliance of Rule 7(3) of the Rules which has been held to be mandatory by this Court in more than one case and on this ground alone the petitioner is liable to be acquitted.