Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 1155 (ALL)

Jitendra Pal v. State of U. P

1980-11-28

J.P.CHATURVEDI

body1980
JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against the judgment and order of the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing an appeal of the applicant, Jitendra Pal and upholding his conviction for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a line of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The prosecution case was that Gautam Singh, Mobile Food Inspector, Meerut Division, inspected the shop of the applicant situate in Mohalla Sanwat Gate in the town of Muzaffarnagar on 20-2-1978 at 8.30 A.M. and purchased 660 M L. Litre of milk for analysis, after giving him notice in form No. 6. One of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported that it was adulterated. The Food Inspector thereupon obtained a sanction from the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar, and thereafter filed a complaint. 3. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He stated that he had been prosecuted under a mistaken identity. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that there was no compliance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under that provision the Public Health Authority has to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst with an intimation that the person concerned could, within ten days, apply for analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. According to Gautam Singh (P.W. 1) the Chief Medical Officer sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst as well as a letter intimating the applicant that he could apply for analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. This registered letter returned undelivered and the Food Inspector gave a copy of the report of the Public Analyst as well as the letter of the Chief Medical Officer to the applicant's Counsel in the presence of the applicant in court on 24-1-1979. Thus, there was compliance of the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the applicant could apply to the court for analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. This contention has, therefore, no merit. 5. It was next urged that the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer for the prosecution of the applicant was invalid. This contention has, therefore, no merit. 5. It was next urged that the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer for the prosecution of the applicant was invalid. No such objection appears to have been taken on behalf of the applicant in the trial court and in the lower appellate court. The sanction has been typed on the back of the report of the Food Inspector,It appears that the Chief Medical Officer had seen the papers. A list of enclosures is mentioned at the foot of the report of the Food Inspector sent to the Chief Medical Officer. The Food Inspector has also stated on oath that those four documents, namely, the notice in form No. 6, a copy of the receipt for payment of the price of the sample of milk, a copy of the memo prepared by him and the report of the Public Analyst, were enclosed to the report. No cross-examination challenging this statement was made on behalf of the applicant. In the circumstance, it is proved beyond doubt that the sanctioning authority applied its mind and that all the material against the applicant had been furnished to him and he had seen all those papers before according the sanction. 6. Lastly, it was urged that benefit of Section 4 of the First Offenders Probation Act should be given to the applicant. Section 20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that the provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act shall not apply to a person convicted for an offence under that Act. 7. The revision has, therefore, no force and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail, to which he shall surrender to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The stay order dated 17-9-1980 is vacated.