Madhusudhan Rao, J.
1. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petitioner's petition to the extent of recalling P.W. 1 and cross-examining him only on the question of supply of copy of the report of the Public Analyst before filing the complaint. He, directed the recalling of P.W. 1 in the light of this Court's observation in Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu 1975 (2) APLJ (HC) 145. Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules reads as follows:
It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector... (j) to send by registered post, a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in case the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent.
2. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read as follows:
(2) After the institution of a prosecution under this Act the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the Court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate; and on receipt of the application the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 are intact and may then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of sample specifying the result of his analysis.
(3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Sub-section (2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under Sub-section (1).
3. In Public Prosecutor v. Sreeramulu (1975) 2 APLJ (HC) 145 the trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on several grounds including the ground of the Food Inspector not having furnished the accused with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The accused in that case pleaded that he was prejudiced in his defence by the non-supply of a copy of the Analyst's report to the effect that the sample of the Food taken from him was adulterated. He asserted before the trial court that if a copy of the Report of the Public Analyst was furnished to him by the Food Inspector as required under Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration. Rules, he would have applied to the court under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and got the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory in proof of his plea that the Food in question was not adulterated. On appeal by the State against the order of acquittal, this Court confirmed the order of acquittal observing that Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory and that the accused therein was denied the salutary safeguard provided under the Rules. In the absence of any proof of prejudice by the accused on account of the non-compliance of Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, it could not be proper for the court to throw out the prosecution case only on account of the non-compliance. By itself the mere non-compliance with Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules does not enable the accused for a presumption that he has been prejudiced there by. In cases of non-compliance with rule 9. (j) the courts have to see whether the accused has been prejudiced in his defence by such non-compliance; it would be a question of fact in each case.
4. Sri K. Pratap Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that the two-documents sought to be filed by the petitioner are, a certified copy of a licence issued by the City Municipality, Warangal and an original receipt for the purchase of groundnut oil. As pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, there is absolutely no valid explanation for the petitioner not having produced these two documents earlier during the trial. The licence is Said to be dated 14-7-1974 while the receipt is said to be dated 14-8-1974. Under the circumstances, the order of the learned Sessions Judge refusing to admit the two documents as additional evidence in the appeal is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.
5. This Revision is, therefore, dismissed.