|
|
|
|
|
| NAND LAL KHATRI V / S STATE OF M.P. 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 401 Section 13 [3] of the act clearly lays down that the certificate issued by the central food laboratory under subsection [2-B] shall supersede the report on the public analyst and if the sample is of a liquid material such as milk, some variance may be there due to non churning of the liquid . But it is not possible with solids, particularly for those adulterations which are prohibited. The the report of central food laboratory in all cases supersede that of the public analyst. Rule 44[h] prohibits selling of turmeric powder with any foreign starch. The fact that simple contains vice starch is the violation of rule 44
UMA PRASAD V/S STATE OF M.P. 1996 J.L.J. 129 Where the food inspector deposes that a copy of the report of the public analyst was sent to the accused after filing the complaint in the court, even if it is not elaborated by which mode it was sent and no officer from the office of the local health authority was examined, the evidence of the food inspector cannot be brushed aside as he is the person intimately associated in such matters. A full bench decision of the high court in FOOD INSPECTOR NAGAR PALIKA MANDSAUR V/S DEVILAL 1985 J. L. J. 195, has also observed that the purpose of section 13 [2] of the act and rule 9 A of the rules is to inform the person from whom the sample was taken of the report of the public analyst so that he may take steps to get sample analyzed by the central laboratory.The provisions of section 13 [2] of the act and rule 9 -A are not mandatory and are directory and the non-compliance of it by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case . This full bench judgment has over ruled NATHU SINGH V/S STATE OF M. P. 1982 J. L. J .8 0 5 The accused person never applied before the court to get the sample analyzed by the central laboratory .Even after appearing before the court that request was not made. It has therefore, to be held that neither total non-compliance of the section 13 [2] has been proved, nor is there any question of prejudice having been caused to the defence for its presumed non-compliance
BHOGIRAM V / S STATE OF M P 1992 F A C 232 = The prosecution was launched about four and a half years after the report, they accused never made an application to get examined the other part of the sample from the central laboratory.Reffering to the decision of the DB of high court, in STATE OF M P V/S TULSIRAM 1970 J. L. J. 572 and decision of the Supreme Court in M C DELHI V/S GHASIRAM ,it was held that the accused was not prejudiced by the delay in filing the prosecution.
REVTA V/S STATE OF M P 1987 M P L J 559 Accused claiming that the non-compliance of the provisions of the section 13 (2) and rule 9 (J) was fatal for prosecution. Copy of the report was sent by registered post, it was not challenged by the accused. At the trial accused also not taking steps to get other part of the sample analyzed by the central laboratory, in the circumstances of the case, accused cannot complain of prejudice. Provisions of section 13 (2) and rule 9(J) are directory and not mandatory. The case of FOOD INSPECTOR NAGAR PALIKA MANDSAUR V/S DEVILAL 1985 J L J 95 (F B) was also referred.
JAIRAM SINGH V/S STATE OF M. P. 1977 M P L J 608 If the rights of the accused are not being affected by the delay in either supply of the copy of the report to the accused or the delay in analyzing the sample he is not said to be prejudiced and therefore the benefit of the delay cannot be given to the accused |
|
Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
|
