Vs. State of H.P  INSC 351 (14 September 1993)
K. Jayachandra (J) Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) Ray, G.N. (J)
1994 AIR 226 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 7 JT 1993 (5) 310 1993 SCALE (3)738
Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- This matter
arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellant was a
milk-vendor. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk and sent the same
for analysis. The Analyst found some deficiency in solids non-fats and opined
that it was adulterated. The main point urged before the courts below was that
Rule 9(j) was not complied with. The trial court held that it was only
directory and convicted the appellant.
appeal filed by him was allowed by the Sessions Judge.
State carried the matter by way of an appeal to the High Court. A batch of
appeals were heard and disposed of by the High Court holding that the rule was
this appeal again the same point is urged and it is further contended that tile
accused was prejudiced inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the report of
the Analyst was sent by registered post to the accused as required under Rule
9(j). We need not go into the question of law in this case. When the Food Inspector
was examined, he deposed in his chief-examination that the report of the
Analyst was sent to the accused by registered post. He was not cross- examined.
The only inference that can be drawn is that the accused received the report.
In such a case the question whether it was sent by registered post or
otherwise, does not assume importance.
appellant was only a milk-vendor and the occurrence is said to have taken place
in the year 1974. The sample of milk was declared to be adulterated on the sole
ground that there was some deficiency in milk solids non-fats. The adulteration
is of a minor nature. For these special reasons while confirming the conviction
of the appellant, we reduce the sentence to three months' RI. The sentence of
fine with default clause is confirmed. Subject to this modification of
sentence, the appeal is dismissed.