VELJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1964 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur and by the judgment dated 21st August, 1977 held guilty of that offence and sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months* rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the conviction was upheld but the suhstan-tive sentence was reduced to six month's rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine to Rs. 500/- in default to undergo one and a half months' rigorous imprisonment, by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur by the judgment dated 9. 5. 76 It is in grievance against his conviction and sentence that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition in this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the point that the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short the Rules') have not been complied with in so far as the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the petitioner. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel referred to the principle laid down in the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Noparam (1) wherein the question of interpretation of the provision of Rule 9 (j) came for consideration and it was held that the provisions of Rule 9 (j), as amended by the Notification dated 13. 2. 73 were mandatory in the sense that it is incumbent upon the Food Inspector to sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom sample is taken, before the filing of the complaint and the failure to do so would entitle the accused to an acquittal. The failure to supply the copy of the report of the Public Analyst by the prosecution was held to be complete non-compliance of clause (j) of Rule 9 of the Rules and the conviction of the accused was set aside.