State vs Kalyanasundaram

Bellie, J.—This Criminal appeal is by the State against an order of acquittal.

The accused stood charged as follows:

On 29.12.1981 at about 12:15 P.M. in the presence of independent witnesses at his provision store at No. 5-A, Chittoor Road, Tiruttani the

accused sold 750 grams of gingery oil at the rate of Rs. 10.90 to the Food Inspector, Town Panchayat, Tiruttani who sent the same for Analysis

and in the analysis the sample was found adulterated and therefore the accused is guilty of an offence punishable under Ss.7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i)

read with S.2(i)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The accused denied the charge.

The prosecution let in evidence. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruttani, found that the provisions of S.13(2) read with R.9-A has not been

followed by the Food Inspector (P.W.1) and therefore the trial is vitiated. On this ground the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused.

Now the question is whether the said finding of the learned Magistrate is not correct?

As per S.13(2) on receipt of the report of the analysis the local Health Authority shall after the institution of the prosecution against the person

from whom the sample of the article of the food was taken, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, 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 of them may make an

application to the Court within a period often days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of food kept by the local

health authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

Now, R.9-A at the relevant time i.e. before 9.7.1984, when it was amended, read thus:

9-A. Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned:- The local health authority shall immediately after the institution of prosecution

forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis in Form III delivered to him under Sub-R.3 of R.7, 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, and simultaneously also to the person, if any,

whose name, address and other particulars has been disclosed under S.14-A of the Act.

Therefore as per R.9-A the Local Health Authority shall forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the .person concerned immediately

after the institution of the prosecution. ''Immediately'' means without any delay. In the present case the prosecution was instituted on 1.3.1982. As

per the evidence of the Food Inspector (P.W.I) be copy of the report was sent to the accused on 22.3.1982 i.e., after a lapse of 21 days. I do not

think that sending a copy of the report after 21 days can be any reasoning said to have been sent immediately. In this, view of the matter I do not

think that the abovesaid finding of the Court below can be said to be erroneous. Further in this case the order of the Court below was passed on

18.2.1984. Now we are in 1993. In these circumstances I do not think the order of the Court below acquitting the accused can be interfered with.

Therefore the appeal is dismissed.