Failure to prove service of the Public Analyst’s report violates Section 13(2) and vitiates conviction.

On 24 April 1990, a Food Inspector purchased samples of curd and Banaspati, among other food items, from the petitioner’s hotel-cum-tea stall.

The Public Analyst reported that the curd and Banaspati samples were below the prescribed standards, and the petitioner was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, and he challenged the concurrent findings in revision, arguing that the Public Analyst’s report had not been served as required by Section 13(2).

The prosecution’s attempts to send the report were returned with the postal endorsement “addressee not found”.

Whether the prosecution established compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by duly serving the Public Analyst’s report on the petitioner.

Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warranted interference in revision where the finding of sufficient service was unsupported by evidence.

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 requires the Local (Health) Authority, after institution of prosecution, to forward the Public Analyst’s report to the person from whom the sample was taken and inform that person of the right to apply within ten days for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory.

Effective service is necessary to preserve the accused’s statutory opportunity to challenge the report and defend the case; mere dispatch is insufficient.

The prosecution must prove service, and a finding of sufficient service unsupported by evidence may constitute perverse appreciation of evidence warranting revisional interference.

The prosecution accepted that its attempts to send the Public Analyst’s report were returned with the endorsement “addressee not found,” and it led no evidence establishing that service was nevertheless sufficient.

Because service of the report was essential to the petitioner’s opportunity to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, the courts below could not properly find compliance on the evidence presented.

The High Court held that this unsupported finding amounted to perverse appreciation of evidence and that the failure to establish service breached Section 13(2).

It also directed that the amicus curiae’s fees be fixed under the applicable Legal Services Authority schedule and disbursed on application; the revision and pending applications were disposed of.