The Food Inspector, Gram Panchayat, Nuzvid vs Golla Nageswara Rao

Mr. Ramanujulu Naidu, J.—The above appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nuzvid acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable u/s 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 and Section 2 (la) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts giving rise to the above appeal lie in a narrow compass and do not admit of any controversy. On 23-1-1977 at about 9-50 a. m. the Food Inspector Nuzvid Panchayat PW-1 purchased 750 Mis of buffalo milk from the respondent for the purpose of analysis after following all the formalities prescribed under the Act. The price for the sample was also paid. One of the parts of the sample was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. Ex. P-11, dated 21-2-1977 is the report of the Public Analyst. On receipt of the report the complaint was instituted by PW-1 on 23-3-1977 before the learned Magistrate and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate on the very same day. On 33-3-1977 the Local (Health) Authority, Panchayat Office, Nuzvid sent intimation to the respondent by registered post as required u/s 13 (2) of the Act enclosing thereto a copy of the report by the Public Analyst. The intimation and the copy of the report of the Analyst. The intimation and the copy of the report of the Analyst were received by the respondent under his acknowledgment, Ex. P-15 dated 28-3-1977.

The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under a mistaken impression that Rule 9 (j) repealed by of the relevant date was in force and that there was'' contravention of Rule 9 (j). It is true that Rule 9 (j), as it then stood, enjoined an obligation upon a Food Inspectorate forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the dealer within ten days from the date of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. The said rule was repealed on 4-1-1977 and in its place Rule 9 (a) was incorporated. Admittedly, the purchase of the sample by PW-1 from the respondent for the purpose of analysis was on 23-1-1977. The instant case is therefore, governed by the newly-incorporated Rule.9 (a)and not by the repealed Rule (j)-Rule.9 (a) lays down that the Local (Health) Authority shall, immediately after the institution of prosecution, forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst, by registered post or by hand, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector. It is that Rule 9 (a) is imperative and mandatory in character and violation or infraction thereof should be fatal to the prosecution. The word ''immediately'' occuring in Rule 9 (a) should not, however, be construed to mean that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst should be forwarded by registered post on the very same day on which the complaint it instituted. If, without any unreasonable delay, a copy of the report of the Analyst is forwarded, it would amount to substantial compliance with the rule. In the instant case, a copy of the report was forwarded to the respondent by registered post on 23-3-1977, that is, one day after the complaint was insituted. There being substantial compliance with Rule 9 (a) the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused. As already stated, the learned Magistrate was under a mistaken impression that the repealed Rule 9 (j) governed the case.

Sri Sivaramakrishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent is unable point out any other flaw in the case of the prosecution. In the results I am constrained to set aside the acquittal of the respondent. Accordingly I set aside the judgment of the lower Court, convict the respondent u/s 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 and Section 2 (ia) and (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence the respondent to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of two months.