1                                                                                         

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1561 OF 2009 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO.5057 OF 2007]

MOHD. ZAFAR ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the concurrent  

judgments  of  conviction  recorded  by  the  Special  

Judicial  Magistrate  (E.O.),  Roorkee  whereby  he  had  

convicted  and  sentenced  the  appellant  for  having  

violated  the  provisions  of  Section  7(iii)  of  the  

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section  

50(i) of the Rules framed thereunder and sentenced to 6  

months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-  

under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and under Section 7(i) of  

the Act to a further sentence of 6 months and a fine of  

Rs. 1,000/-, both the sentences to run concurrently.  

This  judgment  was  confirmed  by  the  IIIrd Additional  

Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by the judgment dated 19th  

August, 1987 and subsequently confirmed by the High  

Court of Uttarakhand by its judgment dated 17th April,

                                                                    2                                                                                         

2006.

As per the prosecution case, the Food Inspector  

had taken a sample of milk from the appellant on 3rd  

April, 1979 which was found to be sub-standard.   

The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  

primarily based his claim before this Court on the fact  

that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act had not  

been complied with inasmuch as that the report of the  

Public Analyst  which was to be served on the appellant  

by the Local (Health) Authority had not been delivered  

to him and as such  his option to have the second  

sample of milk analysed by the Central Food Laboratory  

had been foreclosed.

We have gone through the impugned judgments.  We  

observe that this point had been raised repeatedly by  

the  appellant's  counsel  at  every  state  of  the  

proceedings  in  Court.   In  the  judgment  of  the  

Additional Sessions Judge, dated 19th August, 1987 it  

has  been  observed  that  the  address  given  in  the  

despatch  register  was  defective  inasmuch  as  the  

father's name of the appellant and the address were  

wrong.  The courts below have, however, taken the view  

that as the said communication had been received by the  

grandfather  of  the  appellant  this  was  sufficient  

compliance with the requirement of law.  

                                                                    3                                                                                         

We  find,  however,  that  this  is  taking  too  

simplistic a view of the matter.  As would be clear,  

Section 13(2) of the Act gives a valuable right to an  

accused to have the sample re-examined by the Central  

Food Laboratory and this right should, therefore, not  

be taken away and that it was, accordingly, incumbent  

on the prosecution to show that the report had been  

sent to the appellant properly identifying him and also  

appropriately addressed so that a presumption would be  

raised as to its delivery.

We are, thus,  of the opinion that even assuming  

for a moment(although this fact has been denied by the  

appellant) that the report had been received by his  

grandfather  it  would  not  mean  sufficient  compliance  

with the provisions of Section 13(2) as we are dealing  

with  a  criminal  matter  having  extremely  serious  

consequences  for  an  accused.   We  find  that  the  

judgments of the courts below cannot be sustained on  

this very short ground.

   The  appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed  and  the  

appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against.  

His bail bonds are discharged.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

                                                                    4                                                                                         

    ..................J      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 18, 2009.