1. The respondent was tried for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, herein-after referred to as "the Act", for selling adulterated 'bason' and 'mustard oil', Upon trial, he was convicted for the said offence and. sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay the fine imposed. Against his conviction and sentence, appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed, which necessitated the filing of a revision petition by him. The High Court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal, allowed the revision petition by setting aside the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court. The accused was held not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, and acquitted.
2. Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the state has filed this appeal, mainly on the ground that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction the High Court could not have disturbed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial as well as the appellate courts.
3. Finding that the mandate of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act had not been complied with, the High Court acquitted the respondent holding that a statutory valuable right available to him had been taken away. Despite referring to the evidence of PW1 and the documents available on record, the High Court reversed the judgment of the courts below with respect to the compliance of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act provides; that on receipt of the report of the public analyst to the effect that the food article was adulterated, the local (health) authority was obliged to forward its copy to the accused, in such manner as may be prescribed, informing him that if he so desires, he can make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of the food kept by the local (health) authority, analysed by the central food laboratory.
4. It is argued on behalf of the accused that mere despatch of the report is not enough and that the prosecution is further obliged , to prove that the letter so despatched had reached the addressee, i.e., the accused. We agree with this submission, as we believe that forwarding a copy of the report is not only a ritual, but a statutory requirement to be mandatorily observed in all the cases. Despatch of such a report it is intended to inform the accused of his valuable right to get the other sample analysed from the central food laboratory. However, in this case, the two courts on facts had found that the copy of the report, in fact, had been despatched and was received by the accused person. PW-1 (Food Inspector) in his statement recorded by the trial court, had stated:
"On 9.4.90 C.D.M.O. intimated the accused regarding the report of public analyst vide his office letter No. 105 dt. 9.4.90. The same was sent by regd. post with A.D. When the A.D. was not returned, the C.D.M.O. made enquiry from the post office. The superintendent of post office confirmed the C.D.M.O. regarding the receipt of the letter by the accused. Exhibit 17 is the office copy of the intimation sent to the accused. Exhibit 18 is the postal receipt. Exhibit 19 is the office copy of the letter addressed to the postal authority. Exhibit 20 is the letter of confirmation received from the postal authority. Exhibit 21 is the copy of A.D. given by the postal authority. In cross-examination he has stated that the record is being maintained by the C.D.M.O. for obtaining sample and sending the sample to the public analyst. In the food section, receiving the report from the public analyst is also maintained in the register as also the copy of the public analyst's report; sending the report is also maintained by the C.D.M.O. office in the food section(?). I maintained that register, as no dealing assistant is provided to maintain that register... I personally despatched the report of the public analyst to the accused after obtaining the signature of the C.D.M.O. on the forwarding letter." The testimony given on oath is presumed to be true unless there is something inherently improbable to disbelieve it. The learned counsel did not point out any infirmity of law which may make this testimony unworthy of belief or credence. The forwarding letter showing despatch of copy of public analyst report, postal receipt, confirmation as regards the receipt and acknowledgement indicating that the accused had received were produced and admitted into evidence. The defence has not disputed the genuineness of the documents. On consideration of the above materials I am bound to conclude that the copies of the reports of the public analyst (Exhibits 13 and 14) were delivered to the accused for compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act read with Rule 9(a) of the rules."
5. Upon analysing all the evidence, the trial court held that the prosecution had proved that the report was despatched by the C.D.M.O., Balangir to the accused along with the report of the public analyst. Similarly; the first appellate court, after holding that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory in nature, had concluded that the copy of the report had, in fact, been served upon the accused person. In view of the oral testimony of PW-1 and the documentary evidence in the form of exhibits P-17 and P-18, the High Court was not justified in disturbing the findings of fact arrived at by two courts of facts. The impugned order of the High Court is thus not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restoring the judgment of the trial court, as upheld by the appellate court, convicting the respondent under Section 16(1) of the Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides paying the amount of fine. The bail bonds of the accused-respondent stand cancelled and he shall be arrested to serve the rest of the sentence, if any.