P.K. Musahary, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine, 30 days simple imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 29.4.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat in CR Case No. 1 of 2002 which was upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat vide his judgment and order dated 15.11.2003 in criminal appeal No. 24 of 2003. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders rendered by the learned Courts below, the present convict/petitioner has approached this Court by filing this revision petition. I have heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the convict/petitioner and also Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party. I have also gone through the records as made available at the time of hearing.

2. The facts narrated by the prosecution are that, P.W. 1 Paresh Banikya, Food Inspector, visited the shop of the convict/petitioner on 15.10.2001 at about 2.30 p.m. and he, identifying himself to be so, collected samples of rice and Moong, Dal stored for sale for human consumption suspecting it to be adulterated by observing necessary formalities. After collecting the samples, a part of it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati for necessary chemical analysis. After doing necessary chemical analysis, the FSL submitted a report stating that the sample of rice is not upto the standard. Receiving the said report the Food Inspector obtained the prosecution sanction from the local Health Authority and launched prosecution against the convict/petitioner in the Court of learned CJM, Golaghat. The convict/petitioner, on receipt of notice from the trial Court faced the trial. The learned trial Court thereafter proceeded against the accused in accordance with law by recording evidence of two witnesses. PW. 1 is the Food Inspector and PW. 2 is a Peon of the Office of the Joint Director, Health Services, Golaghat and on the basis of their evidence, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in appeal as stated earlier.

3. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the convict/petitioner submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution did not comply with the statutory requirement under Section 132 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' only) inasmuch as the convict petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with the notice for prosecution. According to him, the prosecution committed serious lapse vitiating the entire trial for which the convict/ petitioner is entitled to get an order of acquittal. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 Supp (4) 659 and State of Orissa v. Gauranga Sahu, reported in 2003 Cri LJ 3077. In this regard he also refers to decisions of this Court in Shyamal Nag v. State of Assam, 2004 1 GLT 667 and Dhananjoy Pal v. State of Assam, reported in 2005 (Supp) GLT. 764.

4. I have gone through the order passed by the Apex Court in Rameshwar Dayal's case (supra) which runs as under :

The matter arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sample taken was found to be adulterated. On the record it appears that the report of the Public Analyst is not supplied to the accused as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. Consequently, he could not get his own sample examined by the Central Laboratory. It is a very valuable right given to him. Rules also provide that such a report should be supplied to the accused within a certain period. The question arose in a similar case where this rule is mandatory or directory. We nee