RAM AVTAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Avtar Petitioner was convicted under section 16(1)(a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Sub Divisional Judicial, Magistrate, Jhajjar, on August 25, 1983. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, hence this revision.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to delineate the facts in any great detail. On October 24, 1978, at about 9 A.M. Balwan Singh Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. Vinod Kumar Yadav went to the shop of the petitioner situated at Silani Gate Jhajjar and purchased 900 gms. of sweet tablets from him for analysis. The sample of sweet tablets was sent to the Public Analyst who vide his report Ex. PD found the same containing unpermitted red coaltar dye and as such unsuitable for human consumption.

(3.) THE short narrow question for my decision is as to whether the requirement that while wrapping the sample in fairly strong thick paper, the ends of the paper must be folded and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. If it is mandatory requirement, then non-compliance with the same will render the prosecution invalid. The reason why I feel that the provision of Rule 16(b) of the Rules must be held to be mandatory is that the ultimate result of conviction of the accused is of very grave, serious and stiff character. If it is found that the said rule was complied with, then the accused has to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of minimum six months in addition to the minimum fine of Rs. 1000/-. If this is the position of law, then it will be reasonable to assume that the officer concerned was expected to comply with each of the formalities prescribed by the rules very strictly. This necessarily means that the rule is mandatory in character. It cannot be lightly assumed that the Legislature wanted the citizens to be sentenced to stiff penalty in a light hearted manner. The rule provides that before invoking the penal provision, certain requirements have got to be complied with. After compliance with those requirements, the citizens may be sent to jail but it cannot have been intended by the Legislature that the same result would follow even if the requirements were not complied with by the authorities concerned. It is on this count that I am persuaded to hold that the requirement of rule 16(b) of the Rules must be construed to be a mandatory requirement. Once the requirement is held to be mandatory and once it is found that the requirement has not been complied with by the Food Inspector, it must follow that the prosecution fails.