The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions must be strictly interpreted, and non-compliance with procedural requirements may not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Theog, District Shimla, upon case No. 13-3 of 2006, as arose from a complaint made by the Food Inspector, under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), made an order of conviction upon the accused. Through a separate order drawn on 6.9.2007, he sentenced the accused to suffer simple imprisonment, of six months each, and, also sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, for the charge drawn under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, through the afore drawn order also made a direction, that upon default of the accused, depositing the afore imposed fine upon them, thereupon, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment, for one month. However, the period of confinement, already undergone by the convicts during investigation and trial, was ordered to be set off, against the afore imposed sentence of imprisonment, upon each of the accused.

2. The verdict made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla, was appealed by the aggrieved, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, the latter, upon Criminal Appeal No. 28-s/10 of 2007, made a verdict of dismissal, and, proceeded to affirm both the afore verdicts, of conviction and, the consequent therewith sentence(s), (supra) as became imposed, upon the accused, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Theog, Shimla. Consequently, aggrieved from the concurrently recorded verdicts(supra), by both the learned Courts below, the accused/convicts instituted the instant Criminal Revision before this Court.

3. Ext. P-1 is the notice issued by the Food Inspector, hence evincing his intention to purchase the sample(s) of Milk, for the purpose of analysis. Ext. P-2 is the receipt, issued by the accused. Ext. P-3, is spot memo. Vide memo, Ext. P-4, the sample alongwith form No. 7 was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, and therealongwith sample of seal, Ext. P-5 was also sent. He deposited it, with the Local Health Authority, Shimla, and, Ext. P-6, is the receipt, as received by the Food Inspector, from the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, as, appertaining to his depositing thereat, the collected samples, vide memo Ext. PW3/A. The report of the Public Analyast, is borne in Ext. P-7, and, was received through Public Health Authority, Shimla, vide Ext. P-8. In the afore report, an opinion occurs that the milk fat content of the sample concerned is 2.56%, and, hence breaches the statutorily prescribed standard of 4.5%.

4. The Food Inspector applied to the CMO, Shimla, for the granting of sanction for prosecuting the accused/convicts. The CMO concerned, through Ext. P-10, granted the aforesaid sanction. Through, letter Ext. PW2/A, addressed to the Local Health Authority, Shimla, to the Food Inspector concerned, an intimation was received from the CMO concerned, for prosecuting the accused, and, it also carried a request to send a notice under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, to the accused. Consequently, the Local Health Authrority, Shimla, issued notice, borne in Ext,. PW2/B to the accused, postal receipts whereof are Ext. PW2/C and Ext. PW2/D. The learned trial Magistrate, after assessing the probative vigor of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses concerned, hence made a conclusion that the echoing(s), carried in the complaint, as made by the Food Inspector concerned, were credible and proceeded to draw an verdict of conviction, and also, imposed the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), upon each of the accused.

5. As aforestated, the verdict made by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, became affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, through the latter making a decision, on 6.5.2010, upon Criminal Appeal No. 28-s/10 of 2007.

6. From a perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear, that the prosecution witnesses concerned, depo