RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for the offence under section 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Sh. Inder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions on behalf of the petitioner. His first contention is that in the instant case there was non -compliance of the provisions of rule 7(3) of the Food Adulteration Rules inasmuch as the report of the Public Analyst was believed to the Local (Health) Authority after 52 days of the date of receipt of the sample for 4 of analysis by the Public Analyst as against the maximum period of 45 days prescribed under the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the provisions in this sub-rule are mandatory and its non-compliance would by itself vitiate the conviction. This contention must be repelled in view of the latest observations made by the Supreme Court in Dal Chand's case reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 303. In that case the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider whether Rule 9(j) as it stood prior to 4.9.1977 when it was replaced by Rule 9(A) was mandatory or directory in character. Rule-9 lays down the duties of the Food Inspector. Clause (j) of this Rule as it then stood was in the following terms :

(3.) The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel is that the trial court in this case should have allowed the petitioner the benefit of section 20(AA) of the Act and released him on probation rather than awarding him a substantive punishment. In support of this contention, it was urged, that though the petitioner had crossed the age of 18 years on the date of his conviction, he was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and as such was entitled to the benefit of section 20 (AA). A bare reading of the plaint language of section 20 (AA) would suffice to repel this contention. This section reads:-