VINAY HYGDE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for qushment of Criminal Case No. 362/2000 (old case No.1919 of 1997) pending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Facts of the case in nut-shell are that on 23.12.1995, Food Inspector namely J.S. Maan collected the sample of Lipton Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener from the vendor namely Prahlad Rai which on examination by the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated vide its report dated 1.2.1996 appended with the present petition as Annexure C.

(3.) According to the counsel for the applicant, the report of the Public Analyst dated 1.2.1996 itself demonstrates that the said sample of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener was analyzed against the standard laid down for skimmed milk powder and not against that of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener. In these circumstances, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the prosecution of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is without any basis. He further submits that as no standard for analysis of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener has been laid down in the schedule, the said product will be governed by Rule 37A(1) & (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He submits that when no specific standard for the analysis of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener is laid down, the entire prosecution of the applicant being misconceived and based on no evidence is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the maximum expiry period for milk products is 10 months but in this case the sample of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener was manufactured and packed in the month of October 1995 whereas the complaint was filed on 17.11.1997 and this delay in filing the complaint has deprived the applicant of his right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and for this reason also the complaint is liable to be quashed. He further submits that though the complaint was filed on 17.11.1997, not even a single witness has been examined by the prosecution and therefore on the ground of delay in trial also, the complaint is liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Food Inspector and another1 and that of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Bipin Mohanty & another v. State of Orissa and another.2