State of Punjab vs Ashok Kumar

A.L. Bahri, J.—Vide this order two Criminal Appeals (Nos. 273-DBA and 278-DBA of 1983) are being disposed of as common question of law is involved therein. In both these cases samples of food were purchased by the Food Inspector. On analysis by the Public Analyst they were not found upto the standard prescribed. Criminal complaints were instituted in these two cases in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. Notices as required u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were issued to the accused calling upon them, if they so desired, to send the second sample of the food kept with the Local (Health) Authority for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory within a period of 10 days by approaching the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. This notice was held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate not in accordance with law and thus he acquitted the accused. The State of Punjab has come up in appeal in these cases.

Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under:

On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under Sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food 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 and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed u/s 14-A, 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 of 10 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.

The aforesaid provision would show that a valuable right is given to the person from whom the sample of food is purchase to get the name re-analysed. if he is not satisfied with the analysis made by the Public Analyst. The re-analysis is to be made by the Director. Central Food Laboratory and his report Is to Supersede the report of the Public Analyst. Such a person is to approach the Court where complaint was filed. In Gurdaspur there were four Judicial Magistrates. From the notice served it could not be said as to which of the Judicial Magistrates was to be approached by the accused for getting the second sample of food sent to the Central Food Laboratory. In the present cases the accused did not exercise such a right and their defence was prejudiced as it was not mentioned in the notice that the cases were pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom they could approach for sending second samples for test. Section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory. Non-compliance of the same vitiates the trial. The trial court was fully justified in acquitting the accused on this ground. Both the appeals are dismissed.