Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2182 (RAJ)

Chandra Shekhar Lakhotia v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-12

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings going on against them in Complaint Case No. 591/2002 (97/1996) in the Court of A.C.J.M. (FT), Bhilwara for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `PF Act'). 3. Assailing the aforesaid proceedings, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that in this case, the petitioners are doing the business of selling tea (food article). It is submitted that a sample of tea was taken by the Food Inspector concerned from the business premises of the petitioners on 23.8.1993 after making payment of requisite charges and the proceedings commenced thereafter by sending the sample of the food article for analysis to the public analyst. It is submitted that the report of public analyst dated 1.10.1993 was received by the Food Inspector whereafter the proceedings for sanction etc. were initiated which was granted in 1996 and ultimately on 17.5.1996, the complaint was filed in the competent Court. It has also been submitted that the intimation was given to the petitioners regarding the sample of tea taken from their shop being adulterated on 20.5.1996 and the petitioners submitted application before the trial court for challenging the said report of public analyst under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the PF Act. It has further been submitted that for a long time, the matter was kept pending and ultimately, the sample was deposited with the Court below by the food Inspector on 24.11.1999 for sending the same to the Central Food Laboratory. On this, the petitioners submitted yet another application for proceeding in accordance with Section 13(2) of the PF Act. But till date, the trial Court has not sent the second sample for analysis to the laboratory. Assailing these proceedings, it is submitted that now a period of nearly 17 years has passed since the sample was taken from the shop of the petitioners and by now, it can be assumed that the sample of tea must have deteriorated and as such, no useful purpose will be served by sending the second sample for analysis to the C.F.L. after a lapse of 17 years from the date when the Food sample was taken. 4. 4. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Girish Bhai Dahyabhai Shah vs. C.C. Jani and another reported in 2009(15) SCC 64 , it has been submitted that since delay which has been caused in the analysis of sample, was not attributable to the accused, the proceedings in the trial as such amount to violation of right of the petitioners to have the second sample of the food article examined under Section 13(2) of the PF Act and the right to an expeditious trial and as such, the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the trial court should be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned public prosecutor submitted that the sample is simply of dry tea leaves which has been taken from the petitioners shop and there is no likelihood that the same would be deteriorated with the passage of time. It has been submitted that opportunity should be given to the C.F.L. to examine the sample and thereafter, if the same was found to be not fit for analysis, then only the benefit of delay could be given to the accused. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the proceedings of the trial court, particularly the proceedings on the application submitted by the petitioners for sending the sample for analysis to the C.F.L. under Section 13(2) of the PF Act. 7. It becomes obvious that the accused at the earliest possible opportunity had exercised their option for challenging the report of the public analyst and had prayed to the trial Court for sending the second sample of the food article for analysis by the C.F.L. Initially the sample was not produced by the Food Inspector before the Court for a period of almost three years after filing of the application under Section 13(2) of the PF Act and by that time, nearly six years had passed since the sample was taken from the petitioners' business premises (1993). Thereafter also, the petitioners again made a prayer for sending of the sample though the same was not at all warranted but despite the petitioners repeatedly pointing out to the Court that they desired to challenge the report of the public analyst by having the second sample of the food article analysed by the C.F.L., but for the reasons best known to the trial court, the second sample could not be sent for analysis to C.F.L. till 2004. The petitioners ultimately have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of delay in examination of the sample resulting into denial of their right under Section 13(2) of the PF Act. 8. This Court is of the opinion that a lapse of more than 11 years had already taken place when the petitioners approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings against them. There was no justification for the trial court to have waited for this long a time in sending the sample of the seized food article for analysis under Section 13(2) of the PF Act. This inaction of the trial court has resulted into the right of the petitioners to challenge the report of the public analyst being defeated because by now more than 18 years have passed since the sample was taken from the petitioners. No useful purpose can now be served by permitting the second sample of food article to be sent to C.F.L. No option is left now with this Court but to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as being violative of their right to have the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and also on the ground that the trial of this case has already gone on for a period of more than 18 years since the sample was taken and as such, the same is violative of the petitioners right to expeditious trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As has been observed above, the petitioners filed the application under Section 13(2) of the Act at the earliest and thus, the argument of the learned P.P. that the sample may be permitted to be sent to the C.F.L. for finding out whether the article of food is fit for analysis or not cannot be accepted looking to the inordinate delay. Even an article of a dry food article like tea leaves also deteriorates by passage of time. A period of eleven years (when the present petition was filed and the proceedings were stayed by this Court) is a long enough period for drawing the presumption that the seized food article would not remain fit for analysis. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah (supra) has clearly held that the delay in sending the second sample for analysis to the C.F.L. amounts to deprivation of right guaranteed under Section 13(2) of PF Act and the proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground. 10. Resultantly, the misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 591/2002 (97/1996) in the Court of A.C.J.M. (FT), Bhilwara for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are hereby quashed. 11. Stay application also stands disposed of.