Jeet Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

This is a revision petition by Jeet Singh against the judgment and order dated September 24, 1981, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1980 by means of which he confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner under Ss. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (for short, the Act).

Very briefly stated the prosecution case was that on August 17, 1979, Dr. A.S. Sekhon went to the shop of the petitioner at Muktsar and purchased 660 mls. of curd from him on payment of Rs. 2.50 p. to him. This was divided into 3 separate parts and after necessary formalities, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found the same to contain milk fat 11.7% milk solids not fat 8.1% and thus the sample was deficient in milk solids not fat by 5% of the minimum prescribed standard.

The case against the petitioner rests primarily on the testimony of Dr. A.S. Sekhon, PW 2, Balwant Singh, Government Food Inspector, PW 3 and Dr. S.S. Sidhu, PW 4. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was a fruit merchant and in order to prove this plea, he examined Kasturi Lal in defence.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither a copy of the report nor the intimation under section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner at all with the result that he could not make the requisite application for getting the sample analysed from the Director. I have perused the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, wherein he has observed in the following terms :

"It is true that under the rules a copy of the report of the Public Analyst should have been served upon the appellant, which has not been done in the present case, but the appellant is not entitled for acquittal on this score alone as no prejudice has been caused to him by not supplying a copy to him."

The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be of the view that if there was no compliance Section 13(2) of the Act, it was not mandatory. In my opinion, the view taken by the Court below is wholly erroneous in law. In Chatar Singh v. The State of U.P., 1979 Allahabad Criminal Rulings 512, it has been held that Section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst coupled with the intimation required therein, must be sent to the accused so that he may be in a position to exercise his valuable rights for getting the sample reanalysed. A failure to comply with these provisions of law has certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner because he could not exercise his right. Similar view was taken in Janak Rai v. The State of Punjab, 1982(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 536.

This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Act and the sentence passed thereunder, are set aside and he is acquitted. The bail bounds of the petitioner are discharged and he need not surrender. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.