Azhar Ali vs State

T.P. Garg, J.—This revision petition by Azhar Ali, son of Azimullah, resident of Saurikh, District Farrukhabad, is directed against his conviction u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence to undergo six months'' R.I. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months'' R. I., passed by Hlrd Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad vide his judgment dated 3.12.1982.

The facts of the case in brief are that on 19.5.1979 at about 11.30 a.m. in Saurikh Bazar, the applicant was found to have sold and exposed for sale "Azwain" which, on analysis by the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated in so far as the Inorganic Extraneous Matter and Organic Extraneous Matter exceeded the maximum prescribed limits of 2% and 3% respectively. After necessary formalities, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of Vth Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who vide his judgment dated 3.2.1982 held the accused guilty u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment of amount to further undergo R.I. for three months. His appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 3.12.1982, against which the present revision has been filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9A were not complied with inasmuch as the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the applicant as prescribed by law. After going through the record, I find that the said contention is without merit. The sample of Azwain was taken 19.5.1979 and it was sent by the Chief Medical Officer, Farrukhabad to the Public Analyst, Lucknow on that very day and same was received by the Public Analyst on 24.5.1979. The prosecution against the accused was launched by way of filing a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 12.8.1979. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was despatched to the accused on 11.9.1979. Sri S.L. Sharma, Food Inspector came in the witness box as P.W. 1, and made a statement on oath that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst No. 9754 was sent to the accused through registered post. Sri R.S. Verma, Steno-cum-Food Clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer came in witness box as P.W. 3. He has proved the postal receipt No. 5515 dated 11.9.79 whereby the copy of the report of Public Analyst Ex. Ka. 8 was sent to the accused-applicant through registered post. An entry to that effect was also made in the despatch register of the office. It has come in the evidence on record that the aforesaid letter was not received back as unserved or undelivered. Under the circumstances, the presumption would be in favour of the aforesaid registered letter having been duly received by the accused-applicant. It was for the accused to have applied for getting his sample analysed at Central Food Laboratory after receipt of the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The said argument is thus not available to him now in this Court. The provisions of Section 13(2) and Rule 9A of the Rules will be deemed to have been duly complied with in the instant case.

No other point has been urged.

In the result, there being no merit in the present revision, the same is dismissed and both the conviction and sentence of the applicant are maintained. The revisionist is on bail and shall surrender to his bail bonds and shall be taken Into custody to serve the sentence awarded to him by the courts below. The stay order dated 14.12.1982 is vacated.