Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1799 (RAJ)

Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-12

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 29/1/2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar in Criminal Regular Case No.27/2010 and seeking quashing of the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint registered against the petitioner for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Facts in brief are that the Food Inspector purchased a packed sample of Captain brand tea leaves from a vendor named M/s Vishwakarma Kirana & General Store on 17.02.2009. The sample was forwarded for analysis to the public health authority where from a report was received, that the sample did not conform to standards. Upon enquiry, the vendor informed that the article had been purchased by him from the petitioner firm. After completing the necessary enquiry, the food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court concerned on 23.02.2010 against the vendor as well as the petitioner firm. 3. As per the admitted facts set out in the complaint, the sample was drawn on 17/2/2009. As per the documents prepared at the time of drawing of samples, the month of packaging was mentioned on the packet of tea leaves as September 2008. The package also bore a specific information that the article was to be consumed best before 12 months from packaging. By necessary implication, the shelf life of the food article (packed tea leaves) came to an end in September 2009. The local health authority analysed the sample and forwarded its report on 17/3/2009 certifying that the sample did not conform to standards. The complaint came to be filed in the Court on 23/2/2010 that is after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample. The petitioner submitted an application under section 13(2) of the prevention of food adulteration act praying that the second sample be forwarded to the Central food laboratory for analysis. The application was accepted by the trial Court by order dated 28/11/2011. However, the sample was not produced in the Court till as late as on 6/11/2012 where after it was forwarded to the Central laboratory for analysis. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for dropping the proceedings on the ground of the violation of the right under section 13(2) of the act. The application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 29/1/2014. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for dropping the proceedings on the ground of the violation of the right under section 13(2) of the act. The application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 29/1/2014. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this miscellaneous petition challenging the trial Courts order dated 29/1/2014 as well as the total proceedings of the complaint. 4. Shri Kartik the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings of the complaint before the trial Court are vitiated because the right of the petitioner to have the 2nd sample of the food article analysed through the Central food laboratory has been violated because the complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf life of the food article. Placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C.Jani & Anr. reported in 2009(15) SCC 64 he prayed that the proceedings of the complaint amount to a gross abuse of process of Court and deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners Counsel and submits that the second food sample has already been forwarded to the Central laboratory for analysis. If the sample is found unfit for analysis then, the laboratory would report such fact, while conducting the requisite tests. Only in that eventuality, the petitioner can contend that his right of having the second sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory was vitiated. He therefore prays that the miscellaneous petition is meritless and be dismissed. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted position from the documents prepared by the Food Inspector that at the time of drawing the sample, it was noticed that the packaged food article bore a warning that the same was to be consumed best before 12 months from the date of packaging. The date of packaging as mentioned on the packet of tea was September 2008. By necessary implication, it would mean that the shelf life of the packaged food article as proposed by the manufacturer was September 2009 and not beyond that. The date of packaging as mentioned on the packet of tea was September 2008. By necessary implication, it would mean that the shelf life of the packaged food article as proposed by the manufacturer was September 2009 and not beyond that. After the lapse of the "best before" date, the manufacturer would be entitled to claim that the food article was no longer available for sale or fit for consumption. If a sample of a packaged food article bearing the statutory warning of best before date fails upon analysis by the Public Analyst, then the vendor, dealer as well as the manufacturer would be acting well within their rights in claiming that they should be provided an opportunity to challenge such report by resorting to Section 13(2) of the Act well before the best before date or the shelf life of the food article lapses. 8. This Court had the occasion to examine an identical situation in the case of Leela Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1180 . After examining various other decisions on the issue including the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C.Jani & Anr. reported in 2009(15) SCC 64 , this Court held that failure to provide an opportunity to have the second sample analysed from the Central food laboratory before expiry of the shelf life of the packaged food article, vitiates the proceedings because it amounts to deprivation of the statutory right available to the accused under section 13(2) of the food adulteration act to challenge the report of the public analyst by getting the second sample of the food article analysed from the Central Food Laboratory. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the complaint itself was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample or the best before date. Thus, by necessary implication, it has to be held that the right available to all the accused facing trial in this case under Section 13(2) of the Act to challenge the report of the public analyst by having the second sample analysed through the Central food laboratory has been violated. Thus, by necessary implication, it has to be held that the right available to all the accused facing trial in this case under Section 13(2) of the Act to challenge the report of the public analyst by having the second sample analysed through the Central food laboratory has been violated. As a consequence and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Girishbhai's case (supra), there is no option but quash the proceedings of the complaint by exercising the inherent powers of the Court. 9. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the trial Court and all proceedings of the criminal complaint No.27/2010 pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M Parbatsar are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******