Raj Bahadur vs Narayan Das

Shambhoo Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by the complainant u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the Respondent-accused for the offence u/s 16(1)(A)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For short the Act) by J.M.F.C, Ujjain in Cr. Case No. 860 of 1980.

The case of the Appellant was that on 1.4.80, the Respondent was found having stored 85 Its. of milk for sale. After notice, 660 ml. milk was purchased and three samples were prepared in accordance with the Rules. After adding formalin, one sealed packet was sent to Public Analyst Bhopal with memorandum in Form No. 7. The public analyst found the sample adulterated and sent report Ex.P. 10. The Local Health Authority sent copy of the report of the public analyst and notice Ex.P. 16 to the Respondent which was returned unserved. Thereafter complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. The trial Judge held that the prosecution failed to prove the compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act which was mandatory and acquitted the Respondent. Hence, this appeal.

None appeared for the Appellant. Shri Saxena, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory and the report was not served along with notice, thus, the prosecution committed breach of the mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of the Act, therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly acquitted the Appellant.

I considered the arguments advanced by senior counsel Shri Saxena and perused the record. From the perusal of evidence available on record, it is clear that the notice of the public analyst report was not served on the Respondent which was mandatory in view of Section 13(2) of the Act. It is thus clear that the prosecution failed to make compliance of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act and this provision being mandatory provision of law, the non-compliance thereof vitiates the proceedings. See Food Inspector, Balaghat v. Tejlal 1995 (1) MWN 92. On careful consideration of evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The bail-bonds of the Respondent are discharged.