Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Key Takeaways

  • Mere dispatch of the report of a public analyst to the accused is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to serve the report on him/her.


  • Apart from the right of the accused to contend that the report is not correct, he has the right to exercise an option of sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory for analysis by making an application to the Court within ten days from the date of receipt of the report
  • A copy of the report of Public Analyst was not supplied to him, as a result of which his valuable right to get the samples analyzed by Central Food Laboratory has been defeated
  • Though the prosecution relied upon the remarks made by the Postman on the postal envelope, the Postman who had allegedly made the said remarks was admittedly not examined by the prosecution.
  • Allowing the appeal, the court held that the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.


  • What is your opinion on this judgement?
  • Do you agree with it?

Share your views in the comments section below.

"Loved reading this piece by Ria Goyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  25  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query