Issuance of notice does not vitiate the proceedings.

This is a revision petition by the second accused in C.C.143 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Tirunelveli.

2. On 14.8.1982, at about 7.30 a.m. the Food Inspector of Tirunelveli Municipality purchased 900ML of the mixture of cow and buffalo milk from the first accused Durai in West Car St, Tirunelveli. He prepared the sample for analysis as provided by law and sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst, Guindy, on the same day. The report of Public Analyst was to the effect that the milk contained 3.6% of fat and 5.2% of solids-not-fat against the respective minimum of 4.5% and 8.5%. The Food Inspector coming therefore to conclusion that the milk was adulterated in as much as it was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of at least 38% and fat to the extent of at least 20% preferred the complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Tirunelveli against the salesman Durai (first accused) and the owner of the milk depot from which the milk subjected to test was being sold to the first accused, viz., Ramaswami Chettiar (second accused) for offences underS.7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read withS.2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial Court upon perusing the evidence produced by the complainant, held both the accused guilty of the offence with which they were charged convicted them thereunder and sentenced both accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and in addition the first accused Durai to pay a fine of Rs.1000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and the second accused to pay a fine of Rs.2000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the first accused Durai the salesman was acquitted and the conviction and the sentence as against the second accused the owner of the milk depot, were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. on 7.12.1983. This revision is directed against that judgment by the second accused.

3. The first ground urged in this revision is that the notice underS.13(2) of the Act regarding the finding of adulteration by the Public Analyst was served on the accused on 6.9.1982, and the complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli was filed on 7.9.1982, that as per law, the complaint to the Magistrate should be anterior to the notice to the accused and on account of the fact of the complaint in this case being posterior to the notice to the accused, the whole proceeding is vitiated. I shall first deal with the question of law on this aspect.

4. It is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that an irregularity in the Criminal Proceedings would affect the conviction only if prejudice has been caused to the accused by that irregularity. There are certain prescription which are of such a nature that non-compliance of the same would automatically entail prejudice. Others are not of such a nature and therefore prejudice should be shown to have been caused to the accused. As far as the present case is concerned, as perS.13 of the Act, upon the receipt of the report of the Analyst of the food article sent, the local Health Authority if it has decided to institute prosecution, shall after the institution of such prosecutor, forward a copy of the result of the Analyst to the person concerned informing such person that if it so desired, he can make an application to the Court within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of the report to get the sample of the food article kept apart by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. As per the proviso toR.9A of the Rules framed under the Act, the concerned person is also to be informed if no action is intended to be taken against him.

5. Therefore, the very purpose of sending a copy of the report to the person concerned is to allow him to make up his mind whether he wants to apply to the Court for another analysis by the