KAN SINGH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except the last one, do not appeal to me as they have no substance.

(2.) It was argued in the first instance that there was no definite evidence that a specimen impression of the seal used for scaling the bottles containing the sample of milk was sent to the Public Analyst separately. The report of the Public Analyst contains a clear averment to the effect that he has received a specimen impression of the seal separately. It has also been mentioned therein that the seals were found intact on the sample received by him and there is no suspicion of any tempering with the seals. It was then urged that the prosecution was launched after considerable delay. There is no doubt that in the present case the prosecution was launched after nearly five months but the petitioner did not submit any application under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. requesting the court to get the sample of milk analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. There is no material on the record to show that the sample of milk taken from the petitioner, to which formalin was duly added, was either decomposed or was in such a condition that it could not be analysed. While it must be emphasised that the prosecuting agency should have launched the prosecution without all avoidable delay after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst yet in the facts and circumstances of the present case the conviction of the petitioner cannot be set aside merely on the ground of delay in launching the prosecution, as no prejudice appears to have been caused to him on that account.

(3.) Then it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sanction for prosecution was given mechanically. The order of the sanctioning authority has been read before me and I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel as well. The concerned authority appears to have read and considered the documents submitted by the Food Inspector, including the report of the Public Analyst and also discussed the matter with the Food Inspector and thereafter sanctioned the prosecution. The sanction in the present case cannot be said to be mechanical merely because it is contained in a printed form, which it is clear from the contents thereof that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the documents submitted by the Food Inspector for its perusal, including the report of the Public Analyst and thereafter granted the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.