The Public Prosecutor v. Pyare Ali .

Jayachandra Reddy, J.:— The matter arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent was tried for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that the Food Inspector, P.W 1, went to the shop of the accused on 8-8-74, and he purchased 375 gms. of groundnut oil for purposes of analysis, in the presence of two panch witnesses, after serving Form VI notice.

3. He fulfilled the other formalities and prepared the panchanama. He sent one of the bottles to the Public Analyst who gave a report Ex. P 11, stating that the sample of groundnut oil is adulterated. Thereafter the Food Inspector, P.W 1, filed the complaint.

4. Several contentions were advanced before the trial Court on behalf of the accused. Most of the points were decided in favour of the Prosecution. One of the arguments before the trial Court was that there was no compliance of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which says that the Food Inspector should send, by registered post, copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst with a person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. In the instant case the report of the Public Analyst is dated 22-8-74, but it was given to the accused only on 17-12-1974. So, the trial Court accepted that there was such a contravention. But, then the question was that the prosecution is vitiated on account of the contravention of the said Rule. The trial Court relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu (1) 1975 (2) A.P.L.J.P 145 acquitted the accused. In that case, Madhusudan Rao, J., while dismissing the appeal against acquitial, observed that the Provisions of Rule 9(j) are mandatory. But, in a latter Judgment reported in I. Ramchandram v. State (2) 1976 (1) A.P.L.J.P 13 S.N the learned Judge had an occasion to consider the Provisions of Rule 9(j) again. In that, the learned Judge reconsidered the Judgment rendered in Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu (1) supra and held thus

“In the absence of any proof of prejudice by the accused on account of the non-compliance of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, it would not be proper for the court to throw out the prosecution case only on the mere non-compliance. By itself the mere non-compliance with Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules does not enable the accused for a presumption that he has been prejudiced thereby. In case of non-compliance with Rule 9(j) the Courts have to see whether the accused has been prejudiced in his defence by such non-compliance; it would be a question of fact in each case.”

5. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Judge referred to the facts in Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu supra and distinguished that decision.

6. This latest decision was rendered subsequent to the Judgment of the trial Court. In the instant case, admittedly, there was contravention of Rule 9(j). But, the question is what it is the prejudice caused to the accused? Before the trial commenced he was given the Analyst's report. It is not his case that by the report being given to him at a later stage any one of his rights are prejudiced or that he suffered prejudice in any other manner. On all other points the Lower Court accepted the prosecution case. So, the judgment of the Lower Court has to be set aside. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 8-8-74 and the trial Court following earlier decision acquitted the accused. The Analyst's report only shows that the sample of groundnut oil is adulterated with castor oil, which is not a serious offence. For the above reasons the accused is convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A Act, but under the circumstances, a nominal fine of Rs. 25/- will meet the ends of Justice.

7. Hence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.