Gurdip Singh vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar, J.—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.7.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1984, dismissing the appeal of the revisionist and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate convicting and sentencing the revisionist u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

In brief, the facts of the present case are that a sample of mixed milk of cow and buffalo was taken by the Food Inspector from the revisionist on 24.7.1983 and the Public Analyst found deficiency of non-fatty solids by 28%. The complaint was filed and the accused was convicted and sentenced u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the Public Analyst had found only deficiency of non-fatty solids by 28%. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ramaswarup v. State AIR1979 FAJ 86, learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that if the fatty contents are all right and sample is deficient only in non-fatty solids, it will not necessarily mean that the sample was adulterated.

It is further contended that the trial court denied an opportunity to the accused, which was available to him, in sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta.

Learned lower court has given reason that the accused did not take step while moving first application and second application was moved after a long time. A perusal of Section 13(b) only requires that if the accused pressed for sending the second part of the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, the Court shall send the same. The provision is mandatory on the request of the accused, but nothing has been provided that accused shall take any step. Neither in the judgment of the Court below nor in any rule, it has been provided that accused has to take any step in depositing the expenses for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Therefore, the application was illegally rejected by the learned Magistrate. Thus, a legal right was denied to the accused.

However, considering the facts that the accused is in jail for the last about 14 years (?) and the prayer of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist be sentenced only for the period already undergone and fine as per the order of the trial court, the sentence of the revisionist is modified to the extent of the period already undergone and fine imposed by the trial court.

The revision is dismissed on merit.