Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KHEM CHAND
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF H.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/09/1993
BENCH:
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 AIR 226 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 7
JT 1993 (5) 310 1993 SCALE (3)738
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- This matter arises under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellant was a
milk-vendor. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk
and sent the same for analysis. The Analyst found some
deficiency in solids non-fats and opined that it was
adulterated. The main point urged before the courts below
was that Rule 9(j) was not complied with. The trial court
held that it was only directory and convicted the appellant.
The appeal filed by him was allowed by the Sessions Judge.
The State carried the matter by way of an appeal to the High
Court. A batch of appeals were heard and disposed of by the
High Court holding that the rule was directory.
2. In this appeal again the same point is urged and it is
further contended that tile accused was prejudiced inasmuch
as there is nothing to show that the report of the Analyst
was sent by registered post to the accused as required under
Rule 9(j). We need not go into the question of law in this
case. When the Food Inspector was examined, he deposed in
his chief-examination that the report of the Analyst was
sent to the accused by registered post. He was not cross-
examined. The only inference that can be drawn is that the
accused received the report. In such a case the question
whether it was sent by registered post or otherwise, does
not assume importance.
3. The appellant was only a milk-vendor and the occurrence
is said to have taken place in the year 1974. The sample of
milk was declared to be adulterated on the sole ground that
there was some deficiency in milk solids non-fats. The
adulteration is of a minor nature. For these special
reasons while confirming the conviction of the appellant, we
reduce the sentence to three months’ RI. The sentence of
fine with default clause is confirmed. Subject to this
modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
--------------------
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
10