Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 939 (ALL)

Ajeet Kumar Rajput v. Stale of U. P.

2005-05-11

A.MATEEN

body2005
A. MATEEN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional government Advocate. Grievance of the petitioner by means of this petition under Section 482, cr. P. C. is that the sample of milk badam drinks was collected from the shop of the petitioner as far back as on 30. 7. 1994 and after analysis of the same the public Analyst vide his report dated 6th September, 1994 had found the same to be adulterated as such a complaint was filed by the respondents which was registered as Case No. 37/2004 under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to hereinafter as Act) in the competent Court and notice was duly served upon the petitioner by the department concerned that the petitioner had a right to get the sample preserved by the department to be re-analyzed by Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata under Section 13 (2) of the Act upon which the petitioner moved an application under Section 13 (2) of the Act vide Annexure 5 on 19. 9. 1995 and submitted that the sample be ot analyzed by Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata and the said application was allowed by I-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide his order dated 25. 9. 1995 and thereafter on 28. 10. 1999 the said sample was forwarded to Central food Laboratory, Kolkata for analysing the same. ( 2 ) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since 28. 10. 1999 uptill date no report has been sent from Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata but the proceedings against the petitioner are continuing in the Court concerned and in spite of application having been moved by the petitioner for discharging him under Section 245, Cr. P. C. the same has been rejected by the Court concerned on 17. 2. 2005 vide Annexure 1. ( 3 ) HENCE this petition. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the respective parties. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Saleem yunus Supariwala v. State of Gujarat. P. C. the same has been rejected by the Court concerned on 17. 2. 2005 vide Annexure 1. ( 3 ) HENCE this petition. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the respective parties. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Saleem yunus Supariwala v. State of Gujarat. On the basis of strength of this judgment, learned Counsel stressed that the Director, Central Food Laboratory was under obligation to send report certificate to the Court concerned in the prescribed form within one month from the receipt of the part of the sample specifying result of the analysis as provided under Section 13 (2) of the Act and in the case in hand same has not been received as also it comes out from the impugned order that no report from Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata has been received at least till 17. 2. 2005. ( 6 ) IT has further been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that prolongivity and pendency of criminal proceedings for such a long period i. e. for more than eleven years itself can be said to be a ground for quashing the same since without any rhyme or reason the matter is being lingered on. Apart from it, valuable right guaranteed under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been infringed as such there is no question of the petitioner to be convicted since it is mandatory on the part of the authorities concerned and also since the trial is proceeding for more than eleven years for no fault of the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner under the aforesaid Act cannot be allowed to continue. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this petition stands allowed. Proceedings of case No. 37/2004 under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending in the Court of learned I-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, lucknow are hereby quashed and the petitioner is hereby ordered to be discharged. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. . .