ORDER :- This is a revision by one Babboo who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The prosecution case was that, on the morning of the 21st of July, 1966, the applicant was found on the Rewa Road near village Sarangpur, within the jurisdiction of police station Ghurpur in the district of Allahabad, transporting cow's milk for sale, sample whereof was purchased by Sri B. L. Sharma, a Food Inspector, and, on examination of the said sample by the Public Analyst, the same was found deficient in non-fatty solid contents. The applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that he was transporting the milk for his own use and not for sale. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence and convicted the applicant, awarding him rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. An appeal to the learned Sessions Judge having failed the applicant filed this revision.

3. At the hearing of this revision learned counsel for the applicant raised two substantial points. The first was that, by reason of delay in starting the prosecution of the applicant, the applicant was deprived of the valuable right conferred on him by the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act to get the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory because by the time the applicant learnt of his prosecution the sample must have deteriorated to such an extent that it would have defied analysis. Reliance in support of this contention, was placed by learned counsel on my decision in the case of Net Ram v. State, 1968 All LJ 916. The second point raised by learned counsel was that, on the material on record it could not appropriately be held that when the Food Inspector took the sample he added thereto the necessary quantity of formaline as required by the rules framed under the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that, whilst the first contention must be negatived, the second must be accepted and this revision must be allowed.

4. The facts relevant to the first contention are that the sample in question was taken on the 21st of July, 1966. The report of the Public Analyst is dated the 3rd of November, 1966. The complaint filed by the Food Inspector, which was duly forwarded to the Court of the Magistrate concerned, is dated the 30th of November, 1966. The case was registered and, on the 14th of December, 1966, summons was directed to be issued to the applicant requiring the applicant to appear on the 27th of December, 1966. Nothing appears to have been done by the office of the learned Magistrate in compliance with the above order with the result that, on the 27th of December, 1966, the learned Magistrate passed another order for the issuance of fresh summons requiring the applicant to appear on the 22nd of February, 1967 and on the latter date the applicant appeared in Court for the first time. Keeping in view the fact that the sample in question was alleged to have been taken from the applicant on the 2lst of July, 1966, it was urged that more than six months had passed by the time the applicant had the opportunity to avail himself of the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act and the sample must have deteriorated and analysis thereof by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory must have been rendered useless. This case is no doubt fully covered by the decision recorded by me in the case of 1968 All LJ 916 (supra), in which I applied the schedule of time in regard to deterioration of curd which had been accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 on the basis of evidence given by one Dr. Satya Prakash, Mr. Girdhar Malaviya, appearing for the State, however, drew my attention to the decision recorded by D. S. Mathur, J., on the 30th of September, 1965, in Criminal Revn. No. 1612 of 1962 (All), Gokul Chand v. S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document