LexTULSI RAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-· - TULSI RAM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH October /l, 1984 [0, CHINNAPPA REDDY A1'D V. KHALID, JJ.] 949 Prevention of Food Adulleration A.et, sections 13 (2) (as amended by Act of 1976) read with Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 9A. scope of-lnterpreta· tion of Rules 9A. Words and Phrases : meaning of ihe word 0 immediate/y" in Rule 9A- Whether delay of 18 days ln supplying the report of the Public Analyst vitiate! the trial-Whether n1ixing cotton seed oil with soyabean oil, adulteration of soya· bean oil-Prevention of Adulteration Rule 44(e) read with section 2(ia) (m). On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample of soya. bean oil purchased by the Food Inspector, Sorar on J7. 8. 79 from the shop of the accused petitioner was found adulterated, a complaint was filed on 29. 11. 79 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Balod. On 17. tt. 79 a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to the petitioner as required by Rule 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The accused petitioner inade no application to the trial Court to have one of the samples sent to the Central Food Laboratory for further analysis, but was content mereJy to deny offence. After due trial, he was convicted by the Magistrate on 8. 9. 82 under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Session Judge, Durg and the Revision Petition preferred thereafter to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh were dismissed, Hence the Special leave petition. Dismissing the petition, the Court, HELD : 1: 1. The expression "immediately" in Rule 9A is intended to convey a sense of continuity rather than urgency. What must be done is to forward the report at the earliest opportunity, so as to facilitate the exercise of the statutory right under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in sood and sufficient time before the prosecution commences leading evidence. [961C-D] 1 :2. Non-compliance with Rule 9A is not fatal. It is a question of pre~ B c D E F G jl;ldice. Ap?lring this princirle, in th~ insta1;1t case, the triaJ cannot Qe said to p A 950 5UPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 1 S.C.R. be vitiated by the delay of eighteen days in forwarding the report of the Public Anayst to the petitioner. 1 : 3. Rule 9A has to be interpreted so as to keep it in tune with, and within the bounds of section 13(2). The amended section 13(2) does not pres~ cribe any point of time before which the report of the Public Analyst is to be forwarded to the accused vendor. But, the very basis of a prosecution for B adulteration of food is the report of the Public Analyst that the article of food is adulterated, The accused is given the right to dispute the Public Analyst's report by applying to the court for an analysis by the Central food Laboratory. If the report of the Central Food Laboratory is to the effect that the article of food is not adulterated the very basis of the prosecution will disappear. In such an event the further pursuit of the prosecution will be needless and the accused will have to be discharged or acquitted as the case may be. It is C therefore to be assumed that the report of the Public Analyst is to be made available to the accused vendor at the commencement of the rrosecution, that is to say, before the prosecution starts leading evidence in the case, and in good and sufficient time to enable the accused to exercise his right of having the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory if he so desires it. There- fore Rule 9A carefully refrains from mentioning any definite limit of time and the expression ''immediately" is not to be understood to mean the very next D instant, the very next hour, that very day or the very next day. Construej in its setting, the expression "immediately" is only meant to convey 'reasonable despatch and promptitude' and no more. The idea is to avoid dilatoriness on the part of official dom and prevention of unnecessary harassment to the accused. But the idea is not to penalise the prosecution and to provide a technical defence. If after receiving the Public Analyst's report the accused never sought to apply to the court to have the sample sent to the Central Food E Laboratory, as in the present case, he may not be heard to complain of the delay in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.