IMPORTANT POINT
In compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of PFA Act mere despatch of report is not enough and that prosecution is obliged to prove that letter so despatched had reached address but findings of two Courts below on this fact should not be disturbed by High Court in revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

The respondent was tried for the commission of offence punishable under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, herein-after referred to as "the Act", for selling adulterated bason and mustard oil . Upon trial, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay the fine imposed. Against his conviction and sentence, appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed, which necessitated the filing of a revision petition by him. The High Court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal allowed the revision petition by setting aside the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court. The accused was held not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, and acquitted.

2. Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the state has filed this appeal, mainly on the ground that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the High Court could not have disturbed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial as well as the appellate courts.

3. Finding that the mandate of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act had not been complied with, the High Court acquitted the respondent holding that a statutory valuable right available to him had been take away. Despite referring to the evidence of PW1 and the documents available on records, the High Court reversed the judgment of the courts below with respect to the compliance of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act provides; that on receipt of the report of the public analyst to the effect that the food article was adulterated, the local (health) authority was obliged to forward its copy to the accused, in such manner as may be prescribed, informing him that if he so desires, he can make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of the food kept by the local (health) authority, analysed by the central food laboratory.

4. It is argued on behalf of the accused that mere despatch of the report is not enough and that the prosecution is further obliged to prove that the letter so despatched had reached the addressee, i.e., the accused. We agree with this submission, as we believe that forwarding a copy of the report is not only a ritual, but a statutory requirement to be mandatorily observed in all the cases. Despatch of such a report it is intended to inform the accused of his valuable right to get the other sample analysed from the central food laboratory. However, in this case, the two courts on facts had found that the copy of the report, in fact, had been despatched and was received by the accused person. PW-1 (Food Inspector) in his statement recorded by the trial court, had stated:

"On 9.4.90 C.D.M.O. intimated the accused regarding the report of public analyst vide his office letter No.105 dt. 9.4.90. The same was sent by regd. post with A.D. When the A.D. was not returned, the C.D.M.O. made enquiry from the post office. The superintendent of post office confirmed the C.D.M.O. regarding the receipt of the letter by the accused. Exhibit 17 is the office copy of the intimation sent to the accused. Exhibit 18 is the postal receipt. Exhibit 19 is the office copy of the letter addressed to the postal authority. Exhibit 20 is the letter of confirmation received from the postal authority Exhibit 21 is the copy of A.D. given by the postal authority. In cross-examination he has stated that the record is being maintained by the C.D.M.O. for obtaining sample and sending the sample to the public analyst. In the food section, receiving the report from the public analyst is also maintained in the register as also the copy of the public analyst s report; sending the report is also maintained by the C.D.M.O. office in the food section(?). I maintained that register, as no dealing assistant is provided to maintain that register… I personall