SANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal revision, Sant Singh petitioner assails his conviction and sentence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence to the minimum i.e. six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-. Hence the revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that on September 24, 1980, the petitioner was found in possession of 3 kgs of turmeric powder in his shop for sale. Suspecting the turmeric powder to be adulterated, Piare Lal Government Food Inspector took sample of the same for analysis after observing all the formalities. He sent a sample to the Public Analyst for analysis who reported that the sample contained five dead weevils and two living weevils and as such it was unfit for human consumption.

(3.) MR . C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further stated that the sample of turmeric powder was taken by the Food Inspector on September 24, 1980 and the same was received in the office of the Public Analyst for analysis on September 29. 1980. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst on September 30, 1980. According to the learned counsel, the report of the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector sometime in the month of December, 1980 i.e. after forty-five days. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in State Public Prosecutor v. Meenakshi Achi 1973 F.A.C. 43 in support of his submission that rule 7(3) of the Rules is mandatory in every sense. It was observed by the learned Judges of that Court that in no event and under no circumstances, the full rigour of rule 7 of the Rules could be permitted to be relaxed, otherwise this would even result in the effective deprivation of the valuable right under section 13(2) of the Act conferred on the accused by the Parliament. Having regard to the illegality committed by the Public Analyst by not complying with the mandatory rule 7(3) of the Rules, the petitioner is certainly entitled to take benefit of this violation.