1. The provisions of Section 11 (4) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act, for short) coupled with the procedure adopted in lifting samples are challenged as grounds to acquit the accused, of the offence under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act.

2. The trial Court recorded the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and convicted the sole accused for the offence u/s.16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act. The accused was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to a fine of ` 1,000/-, in default of payment of which, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of two months. The sole accused was unsuccessful in the appeal. Hence, the revision.

3. The accused was running a groceries shop. PW.1 was the Food Inspector. PW.2 was the attender. On 28.02.2002, PW.1 along with PW.2 visited the groceries shop of the accused.

4. The accused was found to be selling groundnut oil from an open tin. Suspecting that the oil was adulterated, PW.1 drew sample by purchasing 450 grams of oil from the tin, through Ex.P.1 cash receipt. Form-VI notice under Ex.P.2 was served upon the accused. On 02.03.2002, one of the three samples was sent along with Ex.P.6 Form VII to public analyst. The public analyst, Hyderabad furnished the report under Ex.P.9 on 22.03.2002 that the sample did not confirm to the standards, that it contained cottonseed oil and that the same therefore was adulterated.

5. The prosecution was lodged after obtaining written consent from the Director of Food (Health) Authority of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. There is no dispute about these facts. There is dispute indeed regarding the violation of following procedure and drawing sample, which shall be referred at the appropriate place.

6. I may narrate the chronological sequence upon which the case of the learned counsel for the accused partly stands. The inspection was held on 28.02.2002 on which date the sample was drawn. On 02.03.2002 the sample was sent for analysis. The analyst submitted his report on 22.03.2002 under Ex.P.9. On 24.09.2002, PW.1 obtained sanction. On 12.11.2002 charge sheet was filed. On 21.11.2002 notice u/s.13 (2) was issued to the accused and was received by the accused on the same day.

7. It is the contention of Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the accused that the sample should be sent within seven days from the date of lifting of the sample for analysis. The learned counsel for the accused drew my attention to Section 11 (4) of the Act. Section 11 (4) reads:

“An article of food seized under sub-section (4) of Section 10, unless destroyed under sub-section (4-A) 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.

Provided that if an application is made to the Magistrate in this behalf by the person by whom any article of food has been seized, the Magistrate shall, by order in writing, direct the Food Inspector to produce such article before him within such time as may be specified in the order.”

8. Section 11 (4) of the Act envisaged that the seized foodstuff shall be produced before the Court as soon as possible and that it should reach the Court not more than seven days after the receipt of the report of the public analyst.

9. Admittedly, the sample had not been submitted to the Court within seven days from 22.03.2002 on which date the public analyst report was issued. The sample was submitted to the Court along with the charge sheet only. At any rate, the sample was not submitted within seven days from the date of report of the public analyst. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the non-submission of the sample within seven days is in violation of Section 11 (4) of the Act and that the accused, consequently, should be entitled to be acquitted by the operation of benefit of doubt.

10. In su