SHAKOOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. dated July 31, 1972, affirming the judgment dated April 6, 1972, of the learned Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur, whereby he convited the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (No. XXXVII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in nutshell is that on August 23, 1968, PW. 1 Maghraj, Food Inspector, saw that the accused was selling milk. Suspecting the milk to be adulterated he gave a notice in from No. VI (Ex. P/l) and purchased 750 Gms. of milk for 37 Paisa THE milk was divided into 3 parts. Each part was then filled in a clean bottle. All the three bottles were sealed in the presence of the petitioner. A memorandum containing the details of the action taken by the Food Inspector was prepared and is marked as Ex. P/2. It bears the signatures of PW. 1 Maghraj, Food Inspector, and those of two attesting witnesses PW. 2 Harumal and P. W. 3 Kewalram. It also bears the signature of Shakoor the accused petitioner. One sample bottle was given to the accused-petitioner and the other was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur, along with the specimen of the seal impressed on Ex. P. /3. THE third bottle was retained by the Food Inspector. THE sealed bottle was received by the Public Analyst on August 24,1968. THE Public Analyst received the bottle for analysis properly sealed and fastened. THE seal was noticed by him to be intact and similar to the seal impression given on the memorandum. THE endorsement to this effect has been made by the Public Analyst in Ez. P/4. He analysed the contents of the bottle and declared the result as under:- Far content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309% Solid not fat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6%

(3.) I shall read rule 9 ( j) of the rules: - "r. 9. Duties of Food Inspector" - It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector - (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) xxx (j) to send by hand or registered post, a copy of the report received in Form III from the public analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken, in case the Act or rules made there under, as soon as the case is filed in the Court. " This rule lays down no penalty for its non-compliance. When a statute requires that a thing shall be done in the prescribed manner or form but does not set out the consequences of non-compliance, the question whether the provision is mandatory or directory has to be judged in the light of the intention of legislature as disclosed by the object, purpose and scope of the Act It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered.