Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1732 (RAJ)

Ramzani v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The present misc. petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.6.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Tonk, in revision No. 6/2006, whereby he has affirmed the order dated 7.7.2005, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Newai, in criminal case No. 965/2001, directing framing of the charge for the offence under Section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act. 2. Briefly the facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the Food Inspector took a sample of Ice-cream from M/s. Jai Shankar Ice-cream Factory, Tonk Road, Newai on 23.6.2001. It is alleged that the sample was taken after making payment of the cost to the petitioner who was in possession of the factory in question. The sample was forwarded to the concerned public analyst for analysis, from where, a report was received that the sample was adulterated. The Food Inspector posted an intimation regarding adulterated sample to the accused and admittedly, the report of the public analyst was sent to M/s. Bajrang Ice-cream Factory, Newai care of Ramzani S/o Akbar Ali, owner of the factory. The said envelope was refused by the accused with the observation that the firm of the petitioner was not in the name of M/s. Bajrang Ice-cream Factory. Thereafter, a complaint was submitted and the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The accused-petitioner challenged the order framing charge by way of a revision and the revisional court also dismissed the same observing that since the envelope bears the name of the petitioner as the owner of the factory, therefore, the intimation under Section 13(2) of P.F.A. Act should be deemed to have been received by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition. 3. Assailing the orders impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is undisputedly, the owner of M/s. Jai Shankar Ice-cream Factory and as such, he was absolutely right in refusing the envelope which was addressed to M/s. Bajarang Ice-cream Factory. He has further contended that since there is a total violation of the right of the accused to challenge the report of the public analyst by sending the second sample for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratory, therefore, the order framing charge could not be sustained. 4. He has further contended that since there is a total violation of the right of the accused to challenge the report of the public analyst by sending the second sample for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratory, therefore, the order framing charge could not be sustained. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the orders impugned. 5. From a bare perusal of the orders impugned as well as the record of the case, the undisputed factual scenario which unfurls is that the sample of the Ice-cream was taken from M/s. Jai Shankar Ice-cream Factory, Tonk Road, Newai. The petitioner was the owner of the said Ice-cream Factory. Admittedly, the report of the public analyst under the provision of Section 13(2) of P.F.A. Act has been sent to M/s. Bajrang Ice-cream Factory, Newai through Ramjani S/o Akbar Ali and the said envelops has been refused by the petitioner and rightly so because the petitioner is not the owner of M/s. Bajrang Ice-cream Factory, Newai. The petitioner could not have known as to what were the contents of the envelope and therefore, once the name of another firm was mentioned on the envelope, there was no illegality in the action of the petitioner in refusing to take the delivery of the envelope. In these circumstances, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the prosecution has deprived the petitioner of his valuable right to send the second sample of the Ice-cream for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory because no intimation was given to the petitioner as regards the report of the public analyst. Now more than ten years have passed since the sample of Ice-cream was taken and no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting the petitioner to exercise his right at this stage. 6. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 7.7.2005, as affirmed by the revisional court, is, hereby, set aside and all proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the order farming charge are, hereby, quashed.