Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 146 (MP)

R. Jagdish Tea Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-02-04

B.D.RATHI

body2015
ORDER : This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been preferred for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the following relief: 'By allowing this petition entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.191/2011 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia (M.P.) be quashed.' 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 21.09.2010 at about 01:30 p.m. Food inspector Shri Lakhanlal Kori reached at Sonu Kirana Stores, Datia. After making all the formalities, three packets of ' Good Choice Premium Tea' containing 250 gms. each were purchased. It was mentioned on each packet:- Batch No.GC-1, Packed on Dec. 2009, Best before 12 months from the date of packing, Repacked by R. Jagdish Tea Company, Ramkripa, Naya Bazar, Gwalior 474009. After following the relevant rules, sample was sent for its analysis and as per the report of the Public Analyst No.FTL/CM/R-4640/5490 dated 28.10.2010, the sample was found adulterated. Then, private complaint was filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia on 09.03.2011 against the petitioner and Sonu Kirana Stores, Datia. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the food sample of three packets of ' Good Choice Premium Tea' containing 250 gms. each were seized on 21.09.2010. It was endorsed on the packet that packets were packed on December, 2009 and could be used before 12 months from the date of packing. Admittedly, before expiry, the food article was seized on 21.09.2010. Food article expired for consumption in December, 2010. Private complaint was filed afterwards on 09.03.2011 meaning thereby that when shelf life of the product (seized article) had expired in December, 2010 and almost after a lapse of period of 14 months from the date of expiry of shelf life of the produce private complaint was filed. Therefore, the right available to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act of second sample has been violated by delay. Thus, the accused /petitioner has been deprived of his right available to him under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act. In view of that, order of taking cognizance is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 4. Thus, the accused /petitioner has been deprived of his right available to him under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act. In view of that, order of taking cognizance is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 4. Prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed on the ground petitioner is free to raise all the objections before the trial court during trial and the trial court shall consider them in accordance with law, therefore, the present petition may be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, facts mentioned in the private complaint have been perused. 6. In paragraph 8 of the complaint, it was mentioned that when information was given by Sonu Kirana Stores to the food inspector on 23.11.2010 that seized article of food were purchased by R. Jagdish Tea Company, then, information was given by food inspector to the petitioner by letter dated 28.12.2010 under Section 14A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In paragraph 16 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that petitioner was informed to remain present in the court at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. This letter was issued vide postal receipt No.RLA-2757 dated 03.03.2011. Thereafter, finally private complaint was filed on 09.03.2011. It clearly indicates that after the expiry of period of shelf life of the sample, petitioner was informed by the food inspector vide postal receipt No.RLA-1739 dated 28.12.2010 that it was disclosed by Sonu Kirana Stores that the seized article were purchased from him. Therefore, information was being given under Section 14A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter, private complaint was filed on 09.3.2011 after the expiry of shelf life of food article. 7. Therefore, information was being given under Section 14A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter, private complaint was filed on 09.3.2011 after the expiry of shelf life of food article. 7. For reaching on the just conclusion of the matter, relevant provision of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would be necessary for taking into consideration which is as follows: '13(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.' 8. A reading of the aforesaid section goes to show that the right to send a second sample accrues in favour of the accused only after the complaint is filed an intimation regarding the complaint is made known to the accused which in this case has not been done/complied with. Therefore, filing the complaint only after expiry of shelf life of the products the right to send the second sample for testing which is vested right available to the petitioner was prevented from applying for analysis of the second sample. The delay in filing the complaint was mala fide and negative. 9. In view of aforesaid, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the complaint filed against it by the Food Inspector with respect to the samples on the basis of report of public analyst after expiry of the shelf period of the product made the whole exercise redundant. Once the complaint was filed after expiry of shelf life, a right to send the second sample became frustrated. Once the complaint was filed after expiry of shelf life, a right to send the second sample became frustrated. Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent can never succeed and thus the prosecution of the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 10. In view of the legal position, petition is allowed and the entire proceedings pending in the Complaint Case No. 191/11 filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are hereby quashed. Copy of the order be sent to the concerning court for compliance. Petition allowed.