( 1. ) APPLICANT has tiled this revision against the judgment dated 5-2-2002 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabulpur in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2001, whereby the judgment dated 3-1-2001 passed by Special Municipal Magistrate, Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 1347 of 1995, convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 7 (1)/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 200/-, was affirmed.

( 2. ) FACTS of the case are that on 9-5-1994, Food Inspector, H. D. Dubey took sample of cow-buffalo milk from the applicant, a milk vendor at Lalmati. Jabalpur. He purchased 750 millilitres of milk, kept it in a container and after making it homogeneous divided it into three parts of 250 millilitres each and filled the samples in three clean dry bottles as per rules and deposited the same in the office of Local Health Authority, Jabalpur. One sample alongwith Form No. 7 was sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Bhopal. Report of Public Analyst (Ex. P-12) was received on 17-6-1994. According to analysis report, the sample was found to be adulterated. After obtaining the sanction from the Dy. Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Jabalpur, the complaint was filed in the Court of Magistrate and a notice alongwith the report of Public Analyst, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act was sent to the accused.

( 3. ) DURING trial the applicant abjured the guilt. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. PC he pleaded false implication. He also pleaded that he did not receive any notice under the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 4. ) IN the trial, the prosecution examined only one witness, viz. , H. D. Dubey, Food Inspector (P. W. 1 ). Relying upon the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate held the applicant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed by Third Add I. Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision.

( 5. ) SHRI Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate, for the applicant challenged the conviction of the applicant mainly on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act. He submitted that the complaint was filed on 23-9-1996, i. e. , after inordinate delay of two years and four months. No explanation was furnished for the above delay. He submitted that the prosecution also failed to prove that the notice as required under the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act alongwith the copy of the report of Public Analyst was sent to the applicant. H. D. Dubey (P. W. 1), Food Inspector, who happened to be the sole witness in the case, merely said that he had received information that a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was sent to the applicant by registered post by the Local Health Authority.

( 6. ) LEARNED Panel Lawyer, Shri Arun Nema on the other hand submitted that merely by filing the complaint late and by mere failure to prove the compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to him as the applicant himself did not make any application before the Court for sending of her part of the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory.

( 7. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to be allowed. It is admitted position that the sample of the milk was taken by the Food Inspector on 9-5-1994. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. P-12) was given on 17-6-1994, but the complaint against the applicant was filed on 23-9-1996, i. e. , after over two years of taking the sample. It is also apparent that the evidence of H. D. Dubey (P. W. 1), Food Inspector is hearsay in respect to sending of the notice and the copy of the report of Public Analyst to the applicant as postulated in Section 13 (2) of the Act. In his statement, he merely stated that he had received the inform