JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J.

Present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.03.2008 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, affirmed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 04.07.2009 upholding the conviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short 'the Act'.

2. The facts of the case are that an inspection of 'Atta Chaki' situated at Shri Bhagat Singh Marg, Kotkapura, being allegedly run by the petitioner was carried out on 12.01.2004 by the Food Inspector along with other officials. Upon service of notice in Form VI, 600 grams of 'Atta' which was kept for human consumption by the petitioner, was purchased as sample against payment of Rs.4.80/-, the same was divided in three equal parts of 200 grams each and one sample of 200 grams was sent to Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh; whereas the remaining two were deposited with the Local Health Authorities, Faridkot. Upon receipt of report Ex.PG from the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, following deficiencies were found:-

i) Ash Insoluble in Dilute HCL is 0.180% against maximum prescribed standard of 0.15%;

ii) 0.10% grit.

3. Based thereupon, a compliant under Section 7 (1) of the Act was filed against the petitioner. Trial Court after relying upon the report Ex.PG of Public Analyst, Punjab, vide its judgment dated 03.03.2008, convicted the petitioner finding him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 16 of the Act and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed first appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 04.07.2009. The plea raised by the petitioner to the effect that he was not running the 'Atta Chaki' in question and happened to be a mechanic was discarded by both the Courts below.

5. Challenging the aforesaid two judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily raised the following two submissions:-

i) As per Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, for short 'the Rules', in case of 'Atta', each sample was required to be of 500 grams; whereas in the present case, the total quantity purchased from the petitioner was 600 grams which having divided into three parts; made one sample each to be of 200 grams only and thus, the quantity of sample which was sent to the Public Analyst was much less than the quantity prescribed under the Rules, as such no reliance could have been placed upon the report submitted by the Public Analyst based on the said sample;

ii) Copy of the report of the Public Analyst i.e. Ex.PG was never served upon the petitioner, thereby depriving him of his statutory right under sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the Act.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that though the sample sent to the Public Analyst was less than the quantity prescribed under the Rules, however, in the absence of any observation made by the Public Analyst as regards his inability to analyze the sample, the Courts below were well within their right to rely upon the report submitted by the Public Analyst. As regards the non-supply of copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the petitioner, it has been pointed out that no such plea was ever raised at the instance of petitioner before the Courts below, thus, he was even esto