Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G. N. RAY, JJ.
Khem Chand, Appellant
Versus
State of H.P., Respondent. 227
Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 1983,
D/- 14-9-1993.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Milk-Vendor - The court held that the rule regarding sending the report of the Analyst to the accused was directory and not complied with, but the accused was deemed to have received the report, thus the method of sending did not assume importance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a milk-vendor, was convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk due to deficiency in solids non-fats. The main contention was non-compliance with Rule 9(j) regarding sending the report of the Analyst to the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence due to the minor nature of the adulteration, deeming the method of sending the report to the accused as not assuming importance.
Issues: Non-compliance with Rule 9(j) regarding sending the report of the Analyst to the accused, and the prejudice to the accused due to lack of evidence of the report being sent by registered post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the method of sending the report to the accused did not assume importance as the accused was deemed to have received the report, despite non-compliance with Rule 9(j).
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was reduced to three months R.I. while confirming the conviction of the appellant.
Judgment
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. The appeal filed by him was allowed by the Sessions Judge. The State carried the matter by way of an appeal. to the High Court. A batch of appeals was heard and disposed of by the High Court holding that the rule was directory.
2. In this appeal again the same point is urged and it is further contended that the 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.
3. The 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 R.I. The sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed. Subject to this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 226
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
