The petitioner Sebastian was found guilty by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur in CC No. 1417 of 1977 for an offence under Sections 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 2(ia)(a)(n) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprinsonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months


2. An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur in C.A. No. 85 of 1978. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence. The instant revision case is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate court


3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows - P.W. 1 is the Food Inspector of Thanjavur municipality. On 27-9-1977 at about 10-15 a.m., he intercepted the petitioner who was carrying 1-1/2 liters of milk in a tin can for the purpose of sale. He served Form No. 6 notice to the petitioner, copy of which is Ex. P.1, and purchased 660 ml. of milk on payment of Re. 1. He obtained cash receipt Ex. P.2. After following the usual procedure, one bottle was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst with Form No. 7 notice, copy of which is Ex. P.3. Another Form No. 7 notice along with sample seal was sent by separate post. The remaining two bottles were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. Ex. P.4. is the report of the Analyst to the effect that the sample was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of 12 per cent. A copy of Ex. P.4 was served on the petitioner under Ex. P.5. The notice under S. 13(2) of the Act copy of which is Ex. P.6, was served on the petitioner under Ex. P.7 after the case was filed against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections


4. When the petitioner was examined with regard to the circumstances appearing against him he denied having committed any offence. He examined one witness to show that he sent milk to the petitioner's house in an eversilver vessel and the sample had been taken from that milk


5. Through a number of points have been raised in the lower court, the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing before me confined his arguments to one point. He contended that the complaint against the petitioner was lodged under the aforesaid sections on 24-12-1977, but the notice as required under S. 13 (2) was served on him only on 19-1-1978 which is contrary to the provisions of law. S. 13(2) read with Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, clearly points out that immediately after the institution of prosecution, the Local (Health) Authority shall forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis in form III delivered under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 by registered post or by hand to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the food inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under S. 14-A of the Act. According to the counsel, after lodging the complaint on 24-12-1977, the report of the Analyst along with the notice was not served on the petitioner 'immediately', as required under Section 13(2) read with rule 9-A of the Act. On the other hand, the report of the Analyst and the notice were served on the petitioner only on 19-1-1978, after a delay of 25 days, which is against the mandatory provisions of law. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, cited before me the decision in Perumal and Ramanarayanan v. Kumbakonam Municipality, 1981 Mad. L.W. (Cri.) 109 : 1981 CrLJ 1366), wherein M. A. Sathar Sayeed J. dealing with the relevant provisions of the Act observed (at p. 1368 of Cri LJ) -

"Section 13(2) of the Act contemplates that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (2) of S. 13, to the effect that the food article is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Similarly, Rule 9-A of the Rules contemplates that the Local (Health) Authority shall immediately after the institution of the prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken by the Food Inspector. The farmers of the rule 9-A thought fit that the report of the Public Analyst should be sent immediately either by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector, in order to make that person aware that the report of the analysis is such and that if he intends to file an application to the court, he may do so within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory" *


The learned Judge referred to the meaning of the word 'immediately' as found in the Lexicon Webster Dictionary, Encyclopedic Edn. Volume 1, as 'without delay; instantly; at once; forthwith; without the intervention of any space, object or medium; directly ......

"He then referred to Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edn. wherein the word 'immediately' has been described as -" *


without interval of time. without delay, straightway or without any delay or lapse of time ..... The words 'immediately' and 'forthwith' have generally the same meaning. They are stronger than the expression 'within a reasonable time' and imply prompt, vigorous action without any delay ......."


The learned Judge in that case, as there was a delay of two months and 14 days, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 9A, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioners, and acquitted them


6. In the instant case, the complaint was filed against the petitioner on 24-12-1977. The Analyst's report Ex. P. 4, is dated 22-10-1977. The notice as required under S. 13(2) was served on the petitioner only on 19-1-1978, that is, after a delay of 25 days after institution of prosecution. The word 'immediately' under Rule 9-A of the Rules would mean at once or without delay or forthwith. Whatever action is sought to be taken, it should be taken speedily and promptly. The word would cannot 'reasonably, quick and prompt time'. It certainly implies that whatever has to be done should be done with all possible speed. In my view 'a day or two' can be taken as 'immediately'. If the Local (Health) Authority complies with the provisions of S. 13(2) read with Rule 9-A, within a day or two, it cannot be said to be violative of the tenor of Rule 9-A and the pith and substance of the word 'immediately'. This of course is a question of fact and is to be determined taking into consideration all the circumstances in a given case. For instance, in a case for the first one or two days if a holiday intervenes, then three days may be taken as 'immediately'. Because of lack of specific provision, it has become susceptible to vari

ed interpretations 7. In the instant case, there is a delay of 25 days which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be 'immediately' within the provisions of Rule 9-A. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The revision case is allowed. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner 8. Before I part with this case, I should mention that the sample in this case was taken on 27-9-1977. The Analyst's report is dated 22-10-1977 but the complaint was filed only on 24-12-1977, and the notice, as required under S. 13(2) was served on 19-1-1978. A little more briskness on the side of the concerned prosecution agency is most welcome Revision allowed.