In Brief
The appellant was convicted of selling adulterated chana daal without a licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The core issue was whether proper notice of the Public Analyst's report was given to the accused. The Supreme Court held that statutory law mandatorily requires the report be served (actually delivered to) the accused, not merely dispatched by post. When the postal packet was returned undelivered, no alternative personal service was attempted. The Court found the High Court erred in presuming service based on unexamined postal endorsements. Since the accused never received the report, he was deprived of his right to request Central Food Laboratory re-analysis within ten days. The conviction was set aside due to this fatal procedural breach.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.