State vs R. Rajasekaran

Bellie, J.—This appeal is by the State. The two accused A1 and A2 who are father and son were charged under S. 2(1a)(a)(j) & (m), 7(1)

read with 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court acquitted Al, but convicted A2 and sentenced him to undergo

R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for three months. Against that conviction and sentence, A2 filed

an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The appellate court found the appellant/2nd accused also not guilty and therefore it acquitted him.

It is against this order of acquittal the State has come up with this appeal.

The case against the second accused is that A1 being the owner of the grocery shop at 70, Periya Kadai Theru, Ammapet and A2 being his son

as well as salesman of the said grocery shop, on 25.10.84, at about 9:15 A.M. sold 7 Kg. of Besan (Kadalai Mavoo) to the Food Inspector,

Ammapet Panchayat Union which when subjected to analysis by the Food Analyst, Guindy, Madras was found adulterated and contained 90% of

Bengal Gram Flour, and the sample was also found to contain Mentanil yellow a coal tar colour, which is not permitted to be used in any food.

Both the accused denied the charge, and as stated above the trial court itself acquitted Al, and convicted only A2 and on appeal, the appellate

court acquitted A2 also.

The only ground on which A2 has been acquitted by the appellate court is that, the report of the Food Analyst, Guindy did not contain the date

of analysis. I am unable to agree with this ground stated by the learned appellate Judge. As per Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1955, ""A Public analyst shall, within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, deliver to the local

health authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form No. III"". Neither S. 13 which require s the public analyst to submit the report to the

local authority of the result of the analysis, of any article of food submitted to him for analysis nor R.7 which prescribes the duties of the public

analyst requires that he must mention the date of the analysis. As seen above, as per clause 7(3), the public analyst shall send the report within 40

days from the date of receipt of the sample for analysis. In the present case, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 Food Inspector, the sample was

taken on 25.10.1984 and the public analyst report is dated 24.11.1984 and it was received by the local health authority on 29.11.84. This would

show that the analysis should have been done within one month. It is nowhere prescribed as to within how many days, the analysis should be done.

Therefore, the mere non- mentioning of the date of analysis does not in anyway affect the credibility of the report. Therefore, the learned Appellate

Court Judge was in error in acquitting the accused on the said ground. I find no other ground on which A2 is entitled for an acquittal. Hence, the

order of acquittal is set aside.

Now, as regards the sentence, the alleged offence is dated 25.10.1984 and A2 was acquitted by the appellate Court in the year 1986 and now

more than 6 years has elapsed. Considering this as a special ground A2 is sentenced to undergo three months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-

and in default to undergo R.I. for one month. However A-2 is entitled to remission of the substantive sentence under G.O. Ms. No. 296 dated

20.2.90. Therefore, he need not surrender to custody to serve the substantive sentence. I grant two weeks time for payment of fine from the date

of receipt of this order by the trial court.