Madan vs State of U.P.

S.K. Agarwal, J.—Learned counsel for the applicant is not present. I have perused the two judgments as well as heard learned A.G. A.

On a perusal of the judgments it is found that an argument with regard to noncompliance of the provision of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'') was raised before the Courts below, but both the Courts below have very cursorily dealt with this aspect of the matter.

On an examination of the judgments it has become apparent that no witness from the office of the Chief Medical Officer has been examined to establish that any Public Analyst''s report along with information, as required under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, to the effect that the vendor can get his sample analysed afresh by the Central Laboratory. Such an application is required to be made within 10 days from the date of receipt of such an intimation or information. It further enjoins a duty upon the prosecution that such an information along with Public Analyst''s report is to be sent immediately after the institution of the prosecution in a Court of law. This was available earlier in Rule 9A, which on 2421995 has been made Rule 9B and the period has now been specified as 10 days. Earlier it was ''immediately'' instead of todays''.

The only evidence on this point coming forth in the case, is in the form of testimony of P. W.1, the Inspector, who had taken the sample. He had only stated, as available from the trial Court''s judgment that the formalities of Section 13(2) have been complied with. This is not a fair and proper compliance of the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act.

The provision of Section 13(2) of the Act has not been introduced in the Act as a mere formality. This provision is meant for every strict compliance not only in words but also in letters also. The present case does not show that the prosecution had discharged this burden, as required by the law.

The question that now crops up for consideration is what prejudice has been caused to the applicant. If there is absolutely no evidence to the effect that the applicant was informed of his right along with the Public Analyst''s report then certainly not only prejudice but serious prejudice apparently is caused to the applicant. The law enjoins this duty of information to an accused upon the prosecution. Taking into consideration that most of the vendors, who carry the buckets or containers of milk with them, are illiterate persons. The purpose behind introducing this amendment in the Act is, thus, sanguine and it has to be strictly complied with. In the present case there appears no compliance of this provision. The postal receipt cannot show the contents of the envelop. No one from CMO''s office is examined to prove that intimation too was sent with P.A. Report.

In view of the above discussions, this revision is allowed. The convection under Sections 7/16 of the Act and the consequential sentence imposed upon the applicant are hereby set aside. The applicant is on bail. His personal bond and surety bonds are hereby discharged. He need not surrender.

Revision allowed.