VADILAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Criminal Complaint being Criminal Case No.1099 of 2014 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bardoli and setting aside the order dtd. 30/7/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant alleging that sample which was found to have been adulterated under Sec. 2 (1-A)(A) and 2(1-A)(M) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore, complaint came to be lodged under Sec. 7(1) and 7(2) of PFA Act and process under Sec. 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be issued against the accused persons. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the applicant, who has been shown as accused No.7 in the complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that on 25/3/2011, the Food Inspector visited the shop Mahalaxmi Juice Centre and bought Venila Classic Frozen Dessert. The samples collected were sent for analysis to the public analyst and vide Report dtd. 30/4/2011, the analyst opined that the sample does not conform to the standard milk fat and is less than the prescribed minimum limit of 10%. That thereafter, consent for prosecution under Sec. 20 of the Act was accorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Prevention of Food Adulteration on 21/7/2014 and thereafter on 30/7/2014 that complaint before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bardoli was filed where ultimately by order dtd. 30/7/2014, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bardoli has issued summons, which was challenged before this Court.

(2.) Learned advocate, Mr.Rajesh Savjani, appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that after taking the sample by Food Inspector - complainant on 25/3/2011, the applicant was informed for the first time on 7/8/2014 by way of communication dtd. 1/8/2014 along with the Report of the Public Health Analyst dtd. 30/4/2011. It is submitted by Mr.Savjani, learned advocate that prior to 7/8/2014, there is no occasion to get the sample tested as envisaged under Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act . Mr.Savjani, learned advocate further submitted that on 7/8/2014, the applicant had received the Analysis Report first time and the shelf-life of the food in question is 12-15 months if preserved as per the standards. Learned advocate, Mr.Savjani, further submitted that by afflux of time, the valuable right to challenge the Public Analyst's Report has been affected and further report from the Central Laboratory in terms of provision contained in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would also be frustrated. Mr.Savjani, learned advocate further would submit that the shelf life of the food in question expired prior to two years and in these circumstances, no meaningful purpose will be served in getting the second report and on that ground only, Mr.Savjani, learned advocate prays to quash this complaint.

(3.) Mr.Savjani, learned advocate relied on the decision rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.10732 of 2010 wherein also, this Hon'ble court had decided the issue and quashed the complaint. Therefore, Mr.Savjani, learned advocate prays that similar order be passed in this matter also and impugned complaint be quashed on the very ground.