JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Accused Aditya Kumar (petitioner herein) has been convicted by the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ['for short 'the PFA Act'] vide judgment dated 20.10.2007 in a complaint lodged by Government Food Inspector, Hisar. Vide a separate order dated 23.10.2007, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period for three months and further to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence of one month in case of non-payment of fine, for committing the said offence. Fine was, however, paid. Appeal filed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence was dismissed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his judgment dated 07.01.2010.

2. Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision. Revision was admitted on 12.01.2010 and on the same day, the sentence of the petitioner was directed to be suspended during the pendency of this petition.

3. As per prosecution case, on 28.09.1999, Sh. Sham Lal Mahiwal, Government Food Inspector, Hisar accompanied by Dr. Ashok Chaudhary inspected the premises of the petitioner, who was found in possession of 20Kg of Dal Masur kept for public sale in a gunny bag. After completing statutory requirements, 600 gms of Dal Masur was purchased for the purpose of analysis. The purchased Dal Masur was divided in three parts and converted into the sealed parcels. One of the parcels along with the slip of LHA, Hisar was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana for the analysis. Other two parcels along with the copies of memo of Form-VII were deposited with Local Health Officer, Hisar. Report of the public analyst Haryana was received, as per which the sample was coloured with sunset yellow synthetic colour, whereas, it should be free from the same. Accused was alleged found to have contravened the provisions of the PFA Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 framed thereunder and as such, after complying statutory requirements, the prosecution was launched.

4. After trial, the charge against the accused was held to be proved and accordingly, he was convicted the sentenced as noted above.

5. Conviction has been assailed by ld. counsel for the petitioner on various grounds to the effect that there was non-compliance of Rules 17 & 18 of the PFA Rules; violation of Rule 28 of the PFA Rules and non-compliance of Rule 22 of the PFA Rules. It is also the contention that there is non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act.

6. It is contended by ld. counsel that though as per the prosecution case, the copy of the report of Public Analyst along with the forwarding memo Ex. PW2/A was sent to the petitioner-accused through registered post and the said registered envelop was never received back, but there is no evidence to show that accused was ever served with the said letter and thus, there is a non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. Learned counsel has relied upon Narayana Prasad Sahu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 669, in which it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere dispatch of the report to the accused is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of Sub Section (2) of Section 13 of the PFA Act and that report must be served on accused.

7. It is noticed that in the above case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the endorsement of the postman showed that number of attempts were made to serve the letter upon the addressee i.e. the accused but he was not available even after giving intimation and therefore, letter was returned by the postman. However, the clerk who had dispatched the report was though examined by the prosecution and it relied upon the remarks made by the postman on the postal envelope, but the postman, who allegedly made the remarks admittedly was not examined by the prosecution. It was in these facts and circumstances that Hon'ble Supreme Court held that examination of the postma