KISHORI LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala affirming the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The facts of the case are that on 3.7.1996 the accused was found carrying milk in a can. This was meant for sale to the general public. The Food Inspector purchased 750 mls. of milk against payment of Rs. 6.75 which was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat for analysis and was found to be adulterated. This was also the case with the sample which had been sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune. Both the learned courts below on the evidence on record convicted the accused.

(2.) What has been urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there has been non compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act which is mandatory and non compliance of this provision is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel places reliance upon the decisions of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh versus Sher Khan, 1998 1 ShimLC 213and State of H.P. versus Partap Singh, 1995 1 ShimLC 448holding that non compliance of the provisions of this Section would vitiate the trial. Learned counsel submits that the application dated 18.10.1997 was filed under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act pleading that the petitioner herein received memo dated 3.10.1997 on 10.10.1997 from the Local Health Authority stating that the sample had been analyzed and found to be adulterated. The applicant intended to have the second part of the sample analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory. What I find from the records is that there is one report of the Central Food Laboratory dated 12.12.2001 of milk sample which was received by the laboratory on 4.12.2001 stating that the sample does not conform to the standards of cow milk as per the PFA Rule, 1955. On 22.11.2001 the learned trial Court records that the second part of the sample produced by Shri Ravinder Kumar, Dealing Assistance, office of LHA, Kangra at Dharamshala in a wooden container in accordance with the Rules under this Act and was sent for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune. It is these facts with which this Court is dealing with. What is admitted is the dates as recorded by the learned Courts below. What I find from the records is that the sample was taken in the year 1996 and has been analyzed after five years by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune. One of the grounds urged before the Courts below was that after such a long period of time nothing would remain in the sample for analysis. Learned Courts below simply proceeded to brush aside this submission by holding that the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Pune nowhere states that the sample was not found to be unfit for analysis and did not conform to the standards prescribed under the Act and Rules. I am surprised in the manner in which the learned Courts below have dealt with this issue.

(3.) In Munna v. State, 1982 CrLJ 884, the Allahabad High Court holds: