LALENG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Laleng, after facing trial for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as `the PFA Act') before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara was convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. He preferred appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Banswara which was dismissed. Hence this revision.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, on 16. 7. 1982 Ramswaroop Sharma was the Food Inspector at Banswara. At about 10. 00 A. M. he checked the petitioner who was selling milk. He introduced himself to the petitioner and took sample of mixed milk for the purpose of analysis. He stirred the milk and poured it in three bottles. Formaline was added and then bottles were sealed. One of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst. The sample was found adulterated. Sanction was obtained and then the complaint was filed. During the trial charge was read over to the accused petitioner who denied his indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined Ramswaroop Sharma PW-1 and Himmat Singh Rathore PW-2. Then the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. After hearing both the parties learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) THE relevant provision is that on receipt of the report of result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. This provision lays down that a copy of the report will be forwarded to the accused after institution of the complaint. In this case complaint was submitted in the court on 9. 8. 1982 and as it appears from Ex. P/10 and statement of PW-2 Himmat Singh Rathore, copy was forwarded to the accused petitioner on 10. 8. 1982. THE question remained whether it reached the petitioner? PW-2 Himmat Singh Rathore stated that the copy was sent with letter Ex. P/10 by registered post. He has proved Ex. P/11. postal receipt. He has stated that the registered letter was not received back nor the acknowledgment was received.