AJAY S MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") has been preferred by the applicant herein - original accused of the offence under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "PFA Act") to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No.400/2003 pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Jhagadia, District Bharuch.

(2.) THAT sample of the iodine salt was drawn / collected from the shop of applicant herein - original accused No.1 on 25.02.1992. That the same was immediately reported to the local authority, Food and Drugs, Bharuch on 25.02.1992. Immediately the sealed sample which was sealed after following due procedure as required was sent to the public analyst, Food Laboratory, Vadodara on 26.02.1992. On chemical analysis by the Public Analyst, Food Laboratory, Vadodara, on 04.03.1992, it was found that the iodine content in the sample/salt was 6.7% ppm as compared to the prescribed standard of PFA limits of 15% ppm and therefore, the same was found to be not confirming to the standard under the PFA Act. That the report of the Public Analyst office, Vadodara dated 24.03.1992 was immediately sent to the Assistant Commissioner and Local Authority, Bharuch as well as the Food Inspector, Bharuch. That the original complainant - Food Inspector immediately sought the sanction for lodging the criminal proceedings as per the provision of PFA Act vide his letter dated 27.04.1992. That the competent Authority granted the sanction vide sanction dated 23.01.2003 and immediately thereafter the Food Inspector filed the impugned criminal complaint against the accused including the applicant - original accused No.2 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhagadia, District Bharuch being Criminal Case No.400/2003 for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the PFA Act. That the learned JMFC has directed to issue summons against the applicant herein and one another for the relevant offences under the PFA Act.

(3.) SHRI Tulsi Savani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that the impugned complaint has been filed by the Food Inspector after a period of 11 years from the date of the sample drawn and therefore, the valuable right of the applicant to get the sample tested by the Central Laboratory as conferred under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act has been taken away and/or violated. It is submitted that as such under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, the accused has a right to get the sample tested by the Central Laboratory. It is submitted that therefore if the sample is now sent to the Central Laboratory, the sample either must have been deteriorated and/or decomposed. It is submitted that therefore the valuable right of the applicant - accused to get the sample tested by the Central Laboratory has been taken away and/or has been violated. It is submitted that therefore on that ground alone the impugned criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. Shri Savani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that therefore, when the applicant - accused has a right to get the sample tested by the Central Laboratory and by the time 11 years have passed, the sample have been decomposed and/or deteriorated and therefore, if the sample is now got tested by the Central Laboratory, it would cause great prejudice to the applicant - accused.