PRABHU versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 21-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRABHU 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
FEBRUARY 21, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Prevelltion of Food Adulteration Ac4 1954: Section 13(2')-Sending 
sample to Central Food Laboratory for analysis-Opportunity to make ap-
plication-Accused not availing of the opportunity-Delay in sending the 
:: sample for analysis-Whether accused suffered prejudice is required to be 
found-Held no prejudice caused. 
The appellant was a milk vendor. The Foool Inspector took samples 
of milk from the custody of the appellant and sent the same for analysis. 
The analyst opined that it was adulterated. Pro! ecution was laid against 
) 
the appellant and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprison· 
ment for six months and to pay a line of Rs.1,000, which was confirmed on 
appeal. On revision, the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced 
the sentence to three months' imprisonment and a line of Rs.500. Hence 
this appeal. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was Inordinate 
delay in forwarding the sample for analysis, whith violated Section 13(2) 
of the aforesaid Act and hence his conviction was not sustainable. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: It is settled law that the appellant his a right under Section 
13(2) of the Prevention or Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to avail the oppor-
tunity of sending the sample in the custody of the Court for analysis by 
the Central Food Laboratory after the prosecution was laid or Immediately 
arternotlce was received by him in the case, by making an application to 
the Court. The duty or the prosecution to send tbe report Is governed by 
Rule 9A of the Rules. After January 4, 1977, the word 'immediately' was 
used replacing the words 'witbkt ten days' in this Rule. The section bas 
confe!Ted a right on the accused to require sending of the sample to the 
Central Food Laboratory. If this right is not availed or at all, conviction 
cannot be set aside, as no prejudice can be inferred lo such a case, which 
62 
( 
., 
• 
PRABHU v. STA1EOFRAJAS1HAN 
63 
req, lrement has to be satisfied.[6S·D·FJ 
Babula/ Hatgavindas v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. (1971) S.C. 1277; Ajit 
Prasad Ramkishan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AJ.R. (1972) S.C. 1631 
and Tulsi Ram v. State of M.P., [1984] 4 S.C.C. 487, relied on. 
A 
Municipal Corporatic 1 of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, [1967] S.C.R. 116 and B 
Ahmed Dadabhai Advani '·State of Maharashtra, J.T. (1991) S S.C. 178; 
distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal ~ppeal No. 
210of1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.'13 of the Rajashtan High 
Court in S.B.Crl. Revision Petition No.61 of 1991. 
S.K. Jain for the Appellant. 
Sasiprabhu and Jayaram for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
Special leave granted. 
c 
D 
The appellant is a milk vendor. On March 19, 1983, the Food E 
Inspector took samples of milk from the custody of the appellant under 
Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 
the 'Act'). He sent the sample for analysis on March 21, 1983. The Analyst 
in his report dated March 30, 1983 found that the milk fat was 4.8% and 
milk solids non-fat was 6.36% whereas the prescribed standard for milk fat 
is d.5% and milk solids non-fat 8.5%. Thereby, he opined that the milk F 
purchased from the appellant was an adulterated milk. On the basis of the 
said report, the prosecution was laid against the appellant. The Magistrate 
in his judgment dated March 11, 1987 found that the appellant had adul· 
terated milk and convicted him under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the 
Act and sentenced him to a minimum period of 6 months and a fine of G 
Rs.1,00Q. On appeal, it was confirmed and in Revision No. 61/19, the Single 
Judge by judgment dated March 30, 1991 confirmed the conviction but the 
sentence was reduced to a period of 3 months and a fine of Rs. 500. Thus 
this appeal by special leave. 
Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that from H 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994]2 S.C.R. 
A the date of taking the sample till the date of laying the prosecution, there 
was considerable delay. There is an inordinate delay to forward the sample 
for analysis by the Directorate of Central Food Laboratory which caused 
considerable prejudice to the appellant. The High Court did not consider 
this aspect of the matter from this perspective. Therefore, the iyipellant is 
B entitled to the acquittal. We find no force in the contention

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.