TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- This revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7(1) read with 2(i-a)(M) and Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the sentences of simple imprisonment for three months and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for three months by the learner Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, which were confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly stated as follows: The Food Inspector P.W. 1 stopped the accused on 3-2-1982 at about 9.15 a.m, who was carrying milk for sale in brass pots on his bycycle, and after disclosing his ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the mahazar, P.W. 3 Local (Health) Authority and P.W. 4 another Food Inspector, and filed Ex. P. 1 to P. 4. The plea of the accused is one of denial. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for the reasons assigned in his judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. He was unsuccessful before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence the revision. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.S. Arunachalam mainly submitted that in the instant case, in the notice Ex. P. 5 under Section 13(2) of the Act the name of the Court in which the prosecution was launched has not been mentioned, and as such the petitioner was deprived of his substantial right to challenge the Analyst report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and kept by the Local Health Authority to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. This is a valuable right conferred on the accused person. If the accused person is not informed as to which Court he has to apply and in which Court the case is pending against him, the valuable right afforded to him under the Act is lost, which would vitiate the prosecution case . 4. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 58, 127, 177, 802, 812 and 825/79, while disposing of C.A. No. 127/79 (State by Public Prosecutor v. Sellamuthu, judgment dated 24-11-1981) Ratnavel Pandian, J., as he then was, held that in addition to the above ground, I would like to point out there is one more ground in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1979 viz., in the memo of intimation under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Section 13, if the necessary precautions prescribed by the Rules for preserving the same have been taken. Relying on the decision the learned Government Advocate submitted that even if the prosecution was launched after a delay of six months, such delay would not vitiate the prosecution. After going through the decision I find that the said decision has no relevance to the present case. The question in this case is whether the statutory right that is available to the accused has been deprived of by not sending a proper notice. I do not find any material to show that the sample was preserved and it was in good condition. In this case even after the receipt of report of Public Analyst Ex. P. 3 on 10-2-1982, the prosecution was launched a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
