Velji Vs. State of Rajasthan

.....sample is taken, before the filing of the complaint and the failure to do so would entitle the accused to an acquittal.;revision allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 7) page 241), wherein the question of interpretaion of the provisions of rule 9(j) came for consideration and it was held that the provisions of rules 9(j), as amended by the notification dated 13-2-74 mandatory in the sense that it is incumbent upon the food inspector to send a copy of the report of the public analyst to the person from whom sample is taken, before the filing of the complaint and the failure to do so would entitle the accused to an acquittal. the failure to supply the copy of the report of the public analyst by the prosecution was held to be complete non-compliance of clause (j) of rule 9 of the rules and the conviction of the accused was set aside......counsel referred to the principle laid down in the case of the state of rajasthan v. roparam 1980, raj. cr. cases (volume v. (no. 7) page 241), wherein the question of interpretaion of the provisions of rule 9(j) came for consideration and it was held that the provisions of rules 9(j), as amended by the notification dated 13-2-74 mandatory in the sense that it is incumbent upon the food inspector to send a copy of the report of the public analyst to the person from whom sample is taken, before the filing of the complaint and the failure to do so would entitle the accused to an acquittal. the failure to supply the copy of the report of the public analyst by the prosecution was held to be complete non-compliance of clause (j) of rule 9 of the rules and the conviction of the accused was set aside.3. the perusal of the record of the case on hand shows that the copy of the report of the public analyst was not furnished to the respondent before the filing of the complaint. the learned public prosecutor could not point out that there was compliance of provisions of clause (j) of rule 9. in such circumstances, this case in completely covered by the principle enunciated in the case referred to above. the conviction of the petitioner is, there fore, not sustainable.4. consequently, the revision petition is allowed. the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. he is on bail and need not surrender to it. his bail bonds stand discharged.