BHANWARA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the judgment of the learned Addl, Sessions judge, Nohar dated. 23.07.93 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2/90, whereby he affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner Bhanwara Ram under Section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred -to as "the Act", with six months' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default, to further undergo two months' S.I., passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Cr. Case No. 66/86 vide judgment dt. 11.12.89.

(2.) THE charge against the accused was that he was found selling adulterated milk on 3.7.84 at Rawatsar Octroi Outpost No. 2, where he was caught by food Inspector Moman Ram, PW 1, who purchased 660 ml. of milk from him by paying Rs. 1.50 p. The milk was divided into three parts for sample. One sample was sent to the chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur and remaining two samples were sent to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sriganganagar. On receipt of the report of the public Analyst, whereby the milk was found to be adulterated, sanction for prosecution was obtained and complaint was field against the accused under Section 7/16 of the Act. The substance of the charge was explained to the accused to which he denied. The prosecution examined three witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P C. He produced one Bhanwar Khan, DW 1 in his defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as above. His conviction & sentence was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the accused petitioner, while relying upon the decision of this Court in Paraga Ram v. State of Rajasthan and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Oil Industries has argued that in this case also, the compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act has not been made, which is mandatory and the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. According to him, there is no reference either in the evidence of the Food Inspector or in the documents produced during trial by the prosecution against the accused which reveals that copy of report of result of the analysis was given to the accused petitioner.