Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh, J.

By a judgment dated June 13, 1983, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called `the Act'') and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. The petitioner''s appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, on December 14, 1983. Against the judgment of the lower appellate Court the instant revision petition has been filed.

On January 10, 1978 the Food Inspector Moti Ram accompanied by Dr. G.L. Chawla and Om Parkash intercepted the petitioner who was carrying 5 Kgs. of cow''s milk. A sample of the milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the petitioner which on analysis by the Public Analyst, Haryana, was found to be deficient by 7 per cent in milk solids not fat to the minimum prescribed standard. On the basis of this report of the Public Analyst the petitioner was prosecuted and was convicted and sentences as mentioned above.

The sole point raise by the petitioner''s counsel is that there is violation of section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called ''the rules''). It is contended that due to the violation of these mandatory provisions of law prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. I find that contention is not without merit.

Under Rule 9A of the Rules the Local (Health) Authority was required, after the institution of the prosecution, to immediately forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by registered post or by hand, as was appropriate, to the petitioner from whom the sample of cow''s milk was taken by the Food Inspector. Admittedly, this rule was not complied with a copy of the report was never sent to the petitioner by the Local (Health) authority. Due to the violation of this rule, the valuable right which was available to the petitioner under section 13(2) of the Act has to be informed that if he so desires he could make an application to Court within a period of 10 days from the date of the 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. It is, therefore, plain that by violation mandatory rule 9A, the valuable right available to the petitioner under section 13(2) of the Act stands defeated. This has certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner and on this count the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.

For aforementioned reason this petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and he is hereby acquitted of the charge. The fine, if paid by him, be refunded.