State of Punjab vs Tilak Raj

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Tilak Raj, a confectioner of Hanuman Chowk, Gurdaspur was tried for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) made with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by Shri D.S. Chhina, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. He was held not guilty and was acquitted vide judgment dated October 7. 1982 which has been assailed by the State of Punjab by way of this appeal.

The prosecution case, in brief, was that on October 21, 1981 Dr. S.S. Bhinder having the powers of Government Food Inspector along with other doctors inspected the shop of the respondent at about 8.25 a.m. The respondent was having 121 kgs. of cow''s milk in his possession which meant for public sale. The Food Inspector served a notice on the respondent and purchased 660 mls of cow''s milk on payment of Rs. 1.85 vide receipt Exhibit PB. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and put in dry and clean bottles. The bottles wore scaled according to rules, after eighteen drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. One such scaled bottle was sent to the public analyst while the other two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public. Analyst on analysis found that this sample contained milk fat 4.8% and milk solids not fat 5.9% and thus the contents of milk solids not fat were deficient by 30% of the minimum prescribed standard. A copy of the report was sent to the respondent after a complaint was filed against him in the Court.

The respondent when examined under Section 13(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case and that he had not committed any offence.

The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the respondent was prejudiced in his defence as provisions of Section 13(2)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been duly complied with, inasmuch as the respondent had not been disclosed the name of the Court where the proceedings had been initiated against him. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that these findings of the learned trial Court were erroneous as there was no violation of the provisions referred to above. The respondent was informed well in time that the prosecution had been launched against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. No prejudice had been used to the respondent because at Gurdaspur only the Chief Judicial Magistrate had been given the powers to try complaints under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act relating to Gurdaspur Sub Division. This submission of the learned counsel does not hold good as the respondent, who was an illiterate person, was not supposed to know as to which of the Judicial Officers was authorised to entertain such complaints. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of Section 13(2) are mandatory and are to be strictly complied with and any noncompliance would vitiate the trial. Subsection (2) of Section 13 reads as under :

"On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under subsection (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 under Section 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 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."

From the above provisions it is evident that the opportunity afforded to an accused to have one of the samples sent to the Central Food Laboratory is restricted to a period of ten days and time will begin to run from the date of service of a copy of the report together with the requisite information contemplated under the provisions. Sending of a copy of the report as well as the information is to be done after the institution of the prosecution. In the instant case the complaint must have been presented in Court for the prosecution or the respondent when the letter Exhibit P 1 was issued along with which the copy of the report was sent but in this letter it was not mentioned as to in which Court the prosecution had been launched. The trial Court has observed that there were four officers exercising the powers of Judicial Magistrates at Gurdaspur, while the letter vide which the report was sent to the respondent simply mentioned that the complaint had been filed in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate. It was not possible for the respondent to ascertain from Exhibit P 1 as to in which Court the prosecution had been launched. The respondent was thus not in a position to exercise the right given to him under the Act effectively and was prejudiced in his defence. In the case of Amar Chand v. The State, 1981 PLR 216 it was held that by Section 13(2) of the Act a valuable right is given to the accused on receiving such a notice from the Local Health Authority giving a copy of the report of the Public Analyst and also telling him that if so desired he may have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory by making an application to the Court and non compliance of these provisions which are mandatory in nature would vitiate the entire proceedings.

The learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that by not disclosing the name of the Court in which the proceedings had been initiated, due compliance of the provisions was not made and the respondent was prejudiced in his defence. The order acquitting the respondent is valid and admits of no interference. Consequently, the appeal is found without merit and the same is dismissed.