HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 8th accused in ST No. 1356/2000 in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala with respect to the offences under S.2(ia)(a) & (m) and 7(i) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter mentioned to as the Act). The rest of the accused as per Annexure A complaint filed by the Food Inspector are the vendor, licensee, distributor, nominee of the company and the manufacturer.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 22/02/2000 at about 2.30 p.m. in the premises of Taj Garden Retreat, Varkala, the Food Inspector collected the food sample of ice cream for the purpose of analyse after complying with the statutory formality. The sample when analysed was found not to confirm to the standard prescribed as per the Food Adulteration Rules.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel for the revision petitioner that the analysis report is dated 31/03/2000. It is pointed out that as per Annexure B letter attached to the complaint it is mentioned that the second sample has not yet received at the office of the Local Health Authority. Annexure B letter is dated 03/05/2000. As per R.17(b) the remaining two parts of the sample etc. should be immediately despatched to the Local Health Authority not later than the succeeding working day by suitable means. It is pointed out that in the absence of compliance of R.17(b) the petitioner is in capacitated to invoke S.13(2) i.e., to get the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. It is also pointed out that the complaint has been instituted on 06/12/2000 and the notice to the petitioner was issued only on 06/01/2001. Evidently, the entire proceedings appears vitiated in view of the fact that the mandatory statutory stipulations has not been complied with. There is inordinate latches and delay on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint as well as in not complying with R.17(b) of the Rules. In the circumstances, I find that the complaint cannot be sustained. Hence, the proceedings pending in the Court below as ST No. 1356/00 is herewith quashed.