Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. After perusal of the case at hand and considering the various submissions made before me by the learned counsel for rival parties, I quote following portion from para 6 of the submissions dated 9.2.2010 on behalf of the respondent -

"It is submitted that the non-applicant has complied with the provisions of Section 13(2). The copy of the Public Analyst report was sent to the accused persons and intimated to them that in case they want to get the sample re-analyzed by Central Food Laboratory, they may apply to the Court within 10 days. But the applicants have not made any application before the Court for sending the 2nd part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for re-

analysis..."

It is not disputed that the sample was collected by the concerned Food Inspector in April 1996 and the prosecution was instituted on 7.7.1999, that is after three years and three months. Report of Public Analyst was received on 23.4.1996 by the Food Inspector and the proposal for written consent was sent on 24.2.1999 to the Joint Director and the consent was received on 27.5.1999. Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act states that the report of Public Analyst is to be sent to the person from whom sample was taken after the institution of prosecution. Apart from the clear language of the Section this Court in para 16 of the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Bhagvandas Gopaldas Bhate - 1970 Mh.L.J. 229 and Madras High Court in the case of State v. Arumugham -1990 Cri.L.J 1497 held that without instituting the prosecution it is no use serving the Public Analyst's report on the accused. I quote the following extract from para 7 of the said judgment of Madras High Court -

8. It is thus clear that the implementing agency or the Food Inspector does not even know that without instituting the prosecution in the court, report of Public Analyst cannot be sent to the person from whom sample was taken to enable him to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Thus the stand taken by the respondent in para 6 of the affidavit is wholly misconceived and shows lack of knowledge of the legal provisions. I quote para 4 from the submissions on behalf of the respondent -

18. After perusal of the case at hand and considering the various submissions made before me by the learned counsel for rival parties, I quote following portion from para 6 of the submissions dated 9.2.2010 on behalf of the respondent -