COMMON JUDGMENT :-Both these revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Petitioner in Crl. R.C. No.1036 of 2002 was convicted of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Petitioner in Crl. RC No.1542 of 2002 was convicted of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

4. Only one ground agitated before this Court is that there has been violation of Section 11 (4) of the Act, therefore the conviction cannot sustain. 11 is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that if the conviction is not set aside, then they should be given benefit of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"). This Court is confining its decision only to these aspects of the matter.

5. The case of the petitioners is that under Section 11 (1) of the Act when a sample is taken by the Food Inspector, he has to divide it into three parts and one part has to be sent for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to Local (Health) Authority and other two parts must be sent to the Local (Health) Authority for the purposes of sub-section (2) of Section 11 and sub-sections (2A) and (2E) of Section 13.

6. Section 11(4) of the Act says that an article of food seized under sub-section (4) of Section 10, unless destroyed under sub-section (4A) of that section, and any adulterant seized under sub-section (6) of that section shall be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst.

7. Section 13(1) of the Act lays down that the Public Analyst shall deliver a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis and subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Act lays down that when a report is received from the Public Analyst that the food article was adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, send a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person. The Local (Health) Authority shall also inform such person that if he desires, he may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.

8. Sub-section (2A) of Section 13 lays down that when an application is made by the accused before the Court under subsection (2), the Court shall ask the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made, the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the Court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition and subsection (2B) of Section 13 lays down that when the sample is received by the Court, after ascertaining that the mark and seal on the sample were intact and had not be tampered with, the Court shall dispatch the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis.

9. Now the case of the petitioners is that two samples had to be deposited before the Court within seven days after receipt of the report of Public Analyst. But if this interpretation on Section 11(4) is accepted, then Section 13 would become redundant. Therefore both Sections 11 and 13 have to be interpreted in a way that the construction is harmonious and I have already noted down Section 13 and if both the sections are read together, there is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document