IMPORTANT POINT
The court applied the principle of presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and considered the applicability of new legal provisions to modify the sentence, demonstrating the evolving legal framework in addressing food adulteration cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1994 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.08.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.30/2002, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction dated 15.01.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, District Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.135/1996, whereby the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month imprisonment.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector -Shri Shikhar Chand filed a compliant (Exhibit P-10) alleging that during patrolling on 27.10.1994, he stopped one Jamil, who was taking milk on cycle. On inquired about the milk, Jamil told that milk is of buffalo and cow. On suspicion of adulteration, he purchased 750gm milk @ Rs.6/-in front of witnesses and prepared a receipt, on which, taken signatures of the witnesses but the accused-petitioner denied to give signature. Thereafter, the samples were sent in laboratory for testing. The samples were found to be adulterated in the sample testing report (Exhibit P-8) and Prosecution Sanction (Exhibit P-9) was also taken and thereafter, notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act of 1954") was sent to the accused-petitioner through registered post and the complaint was filed. On complaint, cognizance for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 was taken by learned Magistrate and charges were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After hearing the parties, the trial Court passed an order dated 15.01.1998 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the trial Court and but the Appellate Court dismissed appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 30.08.2005. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below erred in passing the order. He submits that the Court below have not taken into consideration that provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 have not been complied with. He further submits that as per the prosecution story, analyst report was sent to the petitioner through registered post on 17.04.1996, however, neither acknowledgment nor any evidence was produced before the Courts below showing that registered post was received by the petitioner. He also submits that the Court below has not taken into consideration the statement of Sher Mohammad (DW-1) that petitioner was not engaged in business of sale of milk.

5. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court has not taken into consideration that the trial Court has convicted the petitioner after adopting the summary trial, whereas trial Court ought to have conducted warrant trial. He further submits that Prosecution Sanction, given by Chief Medical Officer, was given in a routine way and was without application of mind. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the orders dated 30.08.2005 and 15.01.1998 may be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 460], the Apex Court was considering the scope of powers granted under Section 397 of the High Court and in paragraphs 8 of the said judgment, the Apex Court observed:–

“8. Before examining the merits of the present