1
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.359/1993
Indra Mal Vs. The State of Rajasthan
DATE OF ORDER : 15th April 2010
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.R.K.Charan,for the petitioner.
Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi,Public Prosecutor for State.
....
BY THE COURT
This revision petition is directed against the judgment
and order dated 23.09.1993 as passed by the Special Judge
and Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal
No.4/1992 (Old No.192/1983) whereby the learned Appellate
Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and
order dated 25.08.1983 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
Pratapgarh in Criminal Case No.555/1976 convicting the
accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘the Act of 1954′)
and sentencing him to 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.1,000/- with stipulation of further rigorous
imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine.
The accused-petitioner was charged of the offence
aforesaid on the accusation that on 28.07.1976 at about
8:00 a.m., the Food Inspector, Ramdhan (PW-1) purchased
660 ml. of milk from the petitioner; and upon analysis, its
sample was found adulterated for the reason of “containing
about 19% of added water”. It was alleged that the report
2
dated 07.08.1976 (Ex.P/4) as received from the Public Health
Laboratory, Udaipur was supplied to the petitioner on
18.08.1976. The complaint whereupon the petitioner was
proceeded against was filed in the Court on 15.09.1976.
The learned Magistrate took the evidence led by the
prosecution; and, in the statement as recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner denied the circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence with further submission
that he was having the licence of working as Halvai and was
not selling milk.
The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, found
proved the prosecution case and held the petitioner guilty of
offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge endorsed the views of the learned
Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
Various submissions were made on behalf of the
accused-petitioner in this matter against prosecution case
including the one about want of compliance of the
requirements of Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954. In this
regard, the learned Magistrate observed that the Food
Inspector received the report of the analyst on 18.08.1976
and on the same day delivered a copy thereof to the
petitioner wherefrom the petitioner was aware of the fact that
sample was found adulterated and he could have exercised
his right to get the sample examined from the Central Food
Laboratory. The same submissions were made before the
3
learned Appellate Judge but were rejected, again with
reference to the statement of the Food Inspector, Ramdhan
(PW-1) about having delivered the copy of report to the
petitioner and having obtained the receipt thereof.
Assailing the orders so passed by the learned
Subordinate Courts, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
urged various contentions including the one that the entire trial
stands vitiated fundamentally for non-compliance of the
requirements of Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 inasmuch as
the prosecution failed to supply the copy of the report of the
result of the analysis to the petitioner after institution of the
prosecution and with information that if so desired, he could
make an application to the Court within 10 days from the date
of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample analysed
by the Central Food Laboratory. The learned counsel
submitted that mere endorsement of the report to the
petitioner and that too before institution of the prosecution,
cannot be said to be the compliance to the requirements of the
Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and on this count alone, for
the direct prejudice having been caused to the petitioner, the
impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside and
the petitioner deserves to be acquitted.
The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
submitted that the copy of the report was indeed supplied to
the petitioner on very day the same was received by the Food
Inspector; and there had not been want of compliance of
4
Section 13 (2) ibid.
Without going into any other question sought to be
raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion
that this revision petition deserves to succeed for non-
compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954 and for
unexplained delay in launching the prosecution. The
provisions contained in Section 13 (2) had been 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
persons 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 14A,
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.”
In the present case, what the Food Inspector did was
to endorse on 18.08.1976 a copy of the report dated
07.08.1976 as received from the Public Analyst to the
petitioner and then, got the complaint filed in the Court only on
15.09.1976. There does not appear any information having
been given to the petitioner that he could made an application
to the Court within 10 days of the date of receipt of copy of the
report to get the sample analysed by the Central Food
Laboratory. Moreover, such copy of the report was given to
the accused-petitioner even before institution of prosecution
5
and not after such institution. The facts of the case show that
the article involved had been milk and the sample was
collected on 28.07.1976. There is nothing on record to bring
satisfaction as to why the prosecution was not launched
immediately upon receipt of the report on 18.08.1976 and as
to why the complaint was filed about a month later, i.e., only
on 15.09.1976? Such a delay itself was likely to have the
effect on the sample and even the repeat analysis from
Central Food Laboratory, if resorted to after launching of
prosecution, was likely to be farcical. For unexplained delay
in launching of prosecution coupled with want of compliance of
all the requirements of Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954, this
Court is clearly of opinion that the petitioner was entitled to be
acquitted.
The learned Subordinate Courts having ignored the
mandatory requirements of Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1954
and having failed to take notice of the relevant facts and
surrounding circumstances, the impugned orders stand
vitiated for illegality and impropriety and, thus, deserve to be
set aside.
Accordingly and in view of what has been discussed
above, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned
judgments and orders are set aside; and the petitioner stands
acquitted. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.