Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1069 (RAJ)

Ramchandra Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-14

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Cr. Regular Case No.76/2009 (Old) and 89/2013 (New) "State v. Santosh Shah & Ors. " qua the petitioners pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr.Div.) No.5, Metropolitan, Jodhpur for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the vendors of the chilly powder and the sample whereof was collected by respondent No.2, Food Inspector from Vishal Mega Mart, Jodhpur on 15.10.2007. At the time of collecting the sample, the Food Inspector prepared Form No.6, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the manufacturing date of the chilly powder was June 2007 and the 'best before date' was mentioned as May 2008. Learned counsel submits that the complaint arraying the petitioners as accused was filed by the Food Inspector in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan, Jodhpur on 25.3.2009 i.e. much after the packaged the chilly powder had expired. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Leela Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1180 and Nemi Chand Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 830 , has contended that the prosecution having been initiated after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample, the mandatory right available to the accused for challenging the report of the public analyst as per Section 13(2) of the Act was violated. They thus pray that the proceedings of the complaint so far as the petitioners are concerned, is liable to be quashed. 3. It is also contended that proceedings against the manufacturers in Cr.Regular Case No.76/2009 State v. Santosh Shah & Ors. have already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2013 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.616/2013 qua the petitioners therein and the case of the present petitioners, being vendors, is on better footing than the case of the manufacturers 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the sample, which was taken by the Food Inspector from the retailer Vishal Mega Mart, Jodhpur was of packaged chilly powder. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the sample, which was taken by the Food Inspector from the retailer Vishal Mega Mart, Jodhpur was of packaged chilly powder. It was noted in the Form No.6 prepared by the Food Inspector at the time of the collection of the samples that the manufacturing date of the chilly powder was June 2007 and the 'best before date' was May 2008. The sample failed upon analysis conducted by the Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur vide its report dated 3.11.2007. The accused undisputedly have a mandatory right to challenge the report of the public health laboratory by having the second sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory by filing an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The said right would obviously be defeated if the complaint itself is filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the food article. Admittedly, in this case, sanction which was accorded by the CMHO Jodhpur for prosecuting the petitioners was accorded on 24.3.2009 by that time, the shelf life of the sample had already expired. The complaint was filed thereafter. Thus, the right available to the accused to challenge the report of the public analyst by having the second sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory stood frustrated by the time, the prosecution was initiated. 6. Resultantly, in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Leela Devi and Nemi Chand Agrawal, the proceedings against the petitioners are vitiated because they have been deprived of their valuable right to challenge the report of the public analyst by having the second sample of the food article sent to the Central Food Laboratory. 7. Thus in view of the above discussions, the misc. petition succeeds and is allowed. Proceedings of the Cr. Regular Case No.76/2009 (Old) and 89/2013 (New) "State v. Santosh Shah & Ors." pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr.Div.) No.5, Metropolitan, Jodhpur for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are quashed qua the petitioners.Stay petition is disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******