Sukhdev Singh vs State of Haryana

Ajay Tewari, J.—This is a revision against the order of conviction passed by the Courts below u/s 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The main argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner (which is not denied by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana) is that even though the Petitioner made an application for checking of sample by Central Food Laboratory within time prescribed i.e.10 days, yet, the sample was sent only after a lapse of 4 or 5 months, whereas, as per the statute it had to be sent within 5 days. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh 1992 AC 239, wherein a Division Bench held as follows:

The sample was produced in the Court on 18.10.1985 and it was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory on 28.10.1985. Thus, the whole process consumed more than four months resulting in violation of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. This Section envisages prompt despatch of the sample within a period of five days from the receipt of such requisition from the Court. Where sample of food article like milk which is of perishable nature is kept for such a long time of more than four months at room temperature(particularly when sample is taken in the hot month of June) it is likely to deteriorate. The accused lost no time in availing of this statutory protection. He moved the application on 20.08.1985 for production of the sample in the Court but it was produced on 18.10.1985. To add to the miseries of the accused, it was analysed on 28.10.1985 i.e.much more than four months from the taking of the sample. Under these circumstances, non production of the sample in the Court for such a long time will certainly cause material prejudice to the accused and breach of the aforesaid mandatory Section of the Act which is fatal to the prosecution.

As per learned Counsel for the Petitioner, his case is completely covered by this judgment. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has very fairly stated that she has not been able to lay her hands on any contrary judgment. In the circumstance, the benefit of delay has to go to the Petitioner as was held by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court.

Consequently, this revision is accepted. The orders of the courts below are set aside. The bail bonds of the Petitioner shall stand discharged and the fine, if recovered, shall be refunded back.

Petition stands disposed of.