Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 706 (RAJ)

Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-21

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 05.5.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 04/1992 framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner by his order dated 10.6.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 24/2008. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Bikaner is said to have taken samples of mustard oil manufactured by the petitioners firm M/s. Oasis Industries Limited, F. 42, Bichhwal Industrial Area, Bikaner on 16.9.1991. After paying the requisite price, the samples of mustard oil were purchased by the Food Inspector from the petitioners premises and thereafter one part of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. A report of the Public Analyst was received on 26.9.1991, as per which the sample of mustard oil was found to be adulterated because of mixing of non-permissible ingredients and also because the same was not conforming to the prescribed standards. The Food Inspector thereafter sought prosecution sanction and after intimating the petitioners about the report of the Public Analyst, as per Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act"), a complaint was filed on 16.01.1992 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner praying for prosecution of petitioners for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act. The petitioners appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and filed an application for sending the second sample of the food article (mustard oil) to the Central Food Laboratory on 09.10.1992. The trial Court, however, appears to have taken no action on the said application which was kept pending for almost 14 years. After a lapse of 14 years, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the order dated 17.8.2006, directed calling of the second sample from the Office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bikaner and thereupon the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. After a lapse of 14 years, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the order dated 17.8.2006, directed calling of the second sample from the Office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bikaner and thereupon the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. From the Central Food Laboratory, a report dated 05.02.2007 was received, wherein no non-permissible ingredient has been found in the second sample of oil but the oil sample was found to be not in conformity with the prescribed standards for mustard oil as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act by the order dated 05.5.2007 and the order framing charge has been affirmed in revision by the learned Revisional Court by its order dated 10.6.2008. It is against the said orders that the instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the charges as well as the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners right to have the second sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory has been prejudicially affected in this case because of the delay which has been occasioned in the examination of the sample. It is submitted that the petitioners filed the application for examination of the second sample well in time, i.e. on 05.01.1992 but it is on account of the delay and laches on the part of the court/prosecution that the second sample could not be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for a period of about 16 years. It is submitted that the report of the Central Food Laboratory, as per which the mustard oil has been found not up to the standard now after a period of 16 years, cannot be read against the petitioners because it is a scientific fact that a sample of oil, after being stored for a period of about 16 years, is bound to have natural changes/deterioration in its quality. It is submitted that the delay in examination of the second sample of food article (mustard oil), which is to the extent of 14 years, vitiates any further proceeding being undertaken against the petitioners as being violative of their fundamental right of a speedy trial. It is submitted that the delay in examination of the second sample of food article (mustard oil), which is to the extent of 14 years, vitiates any further proceeding being undertaken against the petitioners as being violative of their fundamental right of a speedy trial. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order framing charge against the petitioners, as well as the the proceedings going on against the petitioners, deserve to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the miscellaneous petition and submitted that once the report of the Central Food Laboratory in relation to the sample has been received, then the said report supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and since the report of the Central Food Laboratory has been received on the application filed by the petitioners, the petitioners are bound by such report and, therefore, no interference is called for in the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the case. He further submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the delay in sending the second sample of the oil for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar and gone through the material available on record. 6. After going through the material available on record, it becomes apparent that the petitioners immediately on appearing before the court below, filed the requisite application under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 09.10.1992 for challenging the report of the Public Analyst requesting that the second sample of the food article be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. No action was taken on the application filed by the petitioners for a period of about 14 years and it is only after 14 years chat the trial court work-up to the application of the petitioners and then sent the second sample for examination to the Central Food Laboratory. The report, which has been received from the Central Food Laboratory reveals that there is no mixing of any foreign substance in the mustard oil sample but the oil sample has been found to be not conforming with the standards prescribed for mustard oil in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The report, which has been received from the Central Food Laboratory reveals that there is no mixing of any foreign substance in the mustard oil sample but the oil sample has been found to be not conforming with the standards prescribed for mustard oil in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The difference in the constitution of the oil on the analysis of the oil sample after a period of nearly fifteen years can very well be attributed to the natural decay/deterioration caused by lapse of long interval, which has occasioned in the examination of the second sample. Admittedly, the petitioners are not responsible for this delay. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nebh Raj v. State (Delhi Administration) & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 611 , held as below - "We desire to add that there was no justification whatever for launching the prosecution more than two years after the sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst. To launch a prosecution at such a belated stage may result in causing harassment to the accused in some cases and may also result in genuine offenders escaping punishment. We are unable to see why simple cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be launched so late. Tardiness in these matters is inexcusable." 8. That apart, the trial of the case has already been kept pending for last nearly 21 years. The charges were framed against the petitioners in the year 2007. Obviously when the second sample was not even sent for examination to the Central Food Laboratory despite the application being filed by the petitioners 14 years back, the delay cannot be attributed to the accused-petitioners. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that any further prosecution of the petitioners in this case cannot be said to be justified as being violative of the right of the accused to speedy trial as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds; the impugned order dated 05.5.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner framing charges against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 04/1992 is set-aside and consequently the further proceedings against the petitioners are also hereby quashed. *******