Perumal and Ramanaraycman vs Kumbakotlam Municipality

Sathar Sayeed, J.—Accused 1 and 2 in C.C. 425 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, who were charged

and convicted under SS. 7 (1) and 16 (1) (i) read with S. 2 (la) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) as

amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in

default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for year, have filed the above revision.

The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners are running a hotel under the name and style of ""Arya Bhavan"" in Big street, Kumbakonam.

Both the petitioners are partners in the said hotel. On 30th March, 1977 at 12.10 p.m. the Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality, who has

been examined as P.W. 1, went to the hotel of the petitioners. The first petitioner (first accused) was looking after the business and the second

petitioner (2nd accused) was not present. Finding five liters of rose mixture made up of milk, water, essence and sugar for sale, the Food Inspector

purchased 660 ml. of rose mixture on payment of Rs. 1.80, for the purpose of analysis after serving the Form VI notice to the accused which is

marked in this case as Ex. PI. A cash receipt was also obtained from the first petitioner, which is marked as Ex. P2. Both Exs. P1 and P2 were

attested by P.W. 2. The mixture that was purchased by P.W. 1 was divided into three parts and was filled up in three separate clean bottles, as

required by law, and sixteen drops of formalin were also added to each bottle and the sample bottles were then sealed and packed as per rules.

The signature of the first petitioner was also obtained over the slip. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, along with

Form VII notice which is marked as Ex. P3. Another Form VII notice was also sent to the analyst by separate post. The Public Analyst sent his

report, Ex. P4 to the effect that the rose mixture that was sent to him for analysis was found deficient in solids-not fat to the extent of 41 per cent.

A copy of the Public Analyst''s report was sent to the first petitioner under S. 13 (2) of the Act, which was acknowledged and the said

acknowledgement is marked as Ex. P5. Thereafter, P.W.I filed a complaint against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections of the Act on 15th,

June, 1977. After filing the complaint in June, 1977, a notice as contemplated under S. 13 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioners on 29th

August, 1977 and this is marked as Ex. P6. It is not denied that at the time of taking the sample, the first petitioner gave a statement, Ex. P7 to

P.W. 1 that himself and the second, petitioner are the partners of the hotel. On the basis of the Public Analyst''s report, charges were framed

against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections of Central Act 37 of 1954, as amended.

When the trial Court examined the petitioners the first petitioner admitted having sold the rose mixture to P.W. 1. He also stated that it was

made up of sugar, water and milk. The second petitioner also admitted that he is one of the partners of the hotel. However, both of them denied

that they committed the offence as alleged by the respondent warranting their conviction under the Act. The petitioners also examined on their

behalf D.W. 1 who is a person working in the hotel.

The trial Court, on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the petitioners had committed the offence and

accordingly convicted them and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also imposed a fine of RS. 2,000/- on

each of them. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1977 before the Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.

The learned Sessions Judge, after scrutinizing the entire evidence adduced in this case, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the

petitioners by the trial Court and thus dismissed the appeal. It is as against the dismissal of the said appeal, this criminal revision has been filed.

Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners, though raised several points, confined his arguments only to one point which is more

favorable to him. His contention is that the complaint against the petitioners was lodged under the aforesaid sections of Central Act 37 of 1954 on

15th June, 1977 but the notice as required under S. 13 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioner only on 29th August, 1977 which is contrary to

law. Learned counsel contends that S. 13 (2) of the Act, read with; Rule 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as the Rules), clearly points out that the authority shall immediately after the institution of the prosecution, forward a copy of the report

of the result of the analysis in Form III delivered to him under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post, to the person from whom the sample of

the article was taken by the Food Inspector and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been

disclosed under S. 14-A of the Act. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the report of the Public Analyst, Ex. P4, is dated 7th May, 1977

and the complaint was lodged against the petitioners by the respondent on 15th June, 1977. Immediately after lodging the complaint, the

respondent has not sent the copy of the report, Ex. P4 along with the complaint, to the petitioner as required under S. 13(2) of the Act, but on the

other hand, the report of the Analyst and the notice of the complaint were sent only on 29th August, 1977 after a delay of more than two months,

which the counsel contends, is contrary to law. In order to substantiate this argument, learned counsel relies on one of the judgments of mine, viz.,

State by Public Prosecutor v. Murugesan Judgment in C.A. No. 584 of 1978, dated 3rd December. 1980 There is some substance in the

argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

S. 13 (2) of the Act contemplates that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (2) of S. 13, to the effect that the

food article 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, forward 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 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.

Similarly,'' Rule 9-A of the Rules contemplates that the Local (Health) Authority shall ""immediately"" after the institution, of the prosecution forward

a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken by the Food Inspector. The

framers of the Rule 9-A thought fit that the report of the Public Analyst should be sent immediately either by registered post or by hand, as may be

appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector, in order to make that person aware that the

report of the analysis is such and that if he intends to file an application to the court, he may do so 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.

In this case it is not disputed that the complaint was filed on 15th June, 1977 by P.W. 1 against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections of

the Act and the petitioners were served with notice under S. 13 (2) of the Act not immediately, but on 29th August, 1977 after a period of two

months and 14 days. If there is such a delay of 2 months and 14 days, then the very purpose of mentioning the word ""immediately"" in R. 9A is

defeated. The Court should not countenance with favour the laxity or negligence in cases where the report of the Public Analyst is sent very late to

the party from whom the article of food is seized. Courts should also see that there does not occur any delay, as it has happened in the instant

case, in filing complaints against the offenders after the sample of food is taken from them.

The meaning of the word ""immediate"" is found at page 478 of the Lexicon Webster Dictionary, Encyclopedic Edition, Vol. 1 as:-

Occurring or done without separation by an interval of space or time as, in the immediate area, an immediate reaction; instant; related to the

present time ; as the immediate future; in closest relation ; as, the immediate numbers of the family. Acting or occurring without a medium, or

without an intervening cause, means, or condition, as, the immediate source of the problem ; direct.

The word ''""immediately"" is described therein thus:

without delay; instantly; at once; forthwith, without the intervention of any space, object, or medium; directly....

Similarly, in Black''s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, at page 675, the word ""immediately"" has been described thus :-

Without interval of time, without delay, straightway, or without any delay or lapse of time ... The words ''immediately'' and ''forthwith'' have

generally the same meaning. They are stronger than the expression ''within a reasonable time'' and imply prompt, vigorous action without any

delay....

Thus, we find that the sum and substance of the word ''immediately'' is to the effect that the report of the Public Analyst has to be sent to the

petitioners without any delay, i.e., forthwith. If the words in the rule framed under R. 9-A of the Rules are themselves precise and unambiguous,

then no more is necessary than to expound their meaning according to their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves in such a case best

declare the intention of the law giver. In the instant case, the report of the Public Analyst, Ex. P4, though it dates 7th May, 1977 the complaint was

filed against the petitioners on 15th June, 1977 and the notice under S. 13 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioners only on 29th August, 1977

along with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. On perusing the aforesaid dates in filing the complaint against the petitioners by the

respondent and in sending the report of the Public Analyst, I am of the view that the respondent has violated the very tenor of R. 9-A and the pith

and substance of the word ""immediately"". This aspect of the case has not been considered and appreciated by the Courts below and the counsel

appearing for the petitioners has rightly brought to my notice that the respondent has not complied with the requirements of R. 9A.

Under these circumstances, the convictions and the sentences imposed on the petitioners by the courts below under the aforesaid sections of the

Act have to be set aside and this revision has to be allowed. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Fine, if paid by the petitioners, shall be refunded.