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