HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.550/1998 Dashrath VERSES State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Rajkamal Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R 07/03/2011 1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 21.04.1998 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.68/1996 arising out of judgment dated 19.07.1996 passed by C.J.M., Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No.29/1993, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months. 2. According to prosecution case on 17.01.1992 applicant was taking about 15 liters of milk in a container for selling. Shri D.A. Siddiqui, Food Inspector after disclosing his identity purchased 660 milliliter of cow milk vide receipt Ex.P-2. Applicant has intimated him that he is taking the cow milk for sale. Thereafter he made it homogeneous and divided into three parts and kept it in three dried, clean and orderless bottles in accordance with the prescribed rules. Thereafter the bottles were closed airtight and sealed. Panchnama in this regard was prepared and one of the sample was sent to the public analyst and copy of the seal was separately sent to public analyst vide registered post Ex.P-3. Remaining two samples were deposited in the office of local health authority and Ex.P-5 receipt was received. Public Analyst report is Ex.P-9 by which it has been opined that cow milk does not conform to the standard prescribed for cow milk. A copy of this report was sent to the applicant by the office of local health authority. Shri D.A. Siddiqui, Food Inspector after taking necessary sanction vide Ex.P-10 filed the complaint case before the C.J.M., Chhatarpur. The sample was received by public analyst on 04.03.1992 and the report was submitted on 26.03.1992. 3. Before the trial Court on behalf of prosecution only two witnesses PW-1 T.A. Siddiqui, Food Inspector and PW-2 Jahar Prasad an independent witness were produced. However, on behalf of the applicant no defence witness was produced. The learned trial Court relying on the statement of PW-1 D.A. Siddiqui held that all the requisite steps of procedure were followed and sample was found adulterated and eventually convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. PW-2 Jahar Prasad was not believed because he did not support the prosecution case however he has admitted his signatures on Ex.P-1 note of form no.VI, Ex.P-2 receipt, Ex.P-3 Panchnama. The appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the judgment of conviction passed by C.J.M. was dismissed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Rajkamal Chaturvei has challenged the conviction of the applicant only one count that copy of the public analyst report Ex.P-9 was not received by him. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant and justified the finding of conviction arrived at by the courts below and submitted that Shri D.A. Siddiqui has stated in para 9 of the complaint that as per his information a copy of the public analyst report was sent to the applicant but Food Inspector has neither filed the postal receipt nor the acknowledgment. In Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P., 1996 SCC (Cri) 75 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the right conferred upon the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act to get his own sample examined by the Central Laboratory, is a very valuable right. I am therefore satisfied that serious prejudice has been caused to the applicant in this case because of the non-supply of 2 the Public Analyst report, as required under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 6. Applicant has even not admitted in his accused statement that aforesaid report was received by him. Thus he is taking this objection from the initial state that the public analyst report was not received by him. Thus there is non-compliance of provision of Section 13(2) of the Act. Thus, both the courts below have committed a mistake while convicting the applicant because there is non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. 7. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.04.1998 is hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from the charge under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. (S.C. Sinho) Judge psm 3 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR S.B.: HON. SHRI S.C.SINHO, J. Criminal Revision No.550/1998 Dashrath VERSES State of Madhya Pradesh O R D E R Post for: 07/03/2011 (S.C.SINHO) JUDGE 4