HOTEL SAVERA 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 applicants herein original accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings / criminal complaint being PFA Case No.4/2007 pending in the Court of learned JMFC (Municipality), Surat filed by the Food Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "PFA Act").

(2.) That the Food Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation original complainant drawn the sample of "Anuj Bread Spread" from the premises of Hotel Savera at Surat on 02.08.2006. That the said sample was immediately and after following the due procedure was sent to the Public Health Laboratory, Surat on 02.08.2006. That as it was found that the said sample "Anuj Bread Spread" was not as per the prescribed standard provided under the Rules framed under the PFA Act and thus found to be adulterated, the Food Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation had filed the impugned complaint on 20.02.2007 against the accused persons manufacturer as well as vendor including the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the PFA Act. That the learned Magistrate had issued the summonses / process against all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the PFA Act on 20.02.2007. That all the applicants herein were served with the summonses and they appeared through their advocate. That thereafter after a period of approximately 3 years, the applicants herein original accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred the present criminal miscellaneous application under section 482 of the CrPC to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings/complaint in exercise of powers under section 482 of the CrPC.

(3.) Shri P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original applicants herein original accused Nos.1 to 4 has vehemently submitted that in the present case the samples of "Anuj Bread Spread" were collected on 02.08.2006 and the same were sent to the Public Analyst on the same day and the report of the Public Analyst dated 01.09.2006 was received by the complainant and thereafter the impugned complaint has been filed on 20.02.2007. It is submitted that infact the date of expiry of the sample "Anuj Bread Spread" was six months. It is submitted that therefore the expiry date of the sample "Anuj Bread Spread" would be 31.01.2007, whereas the impugned complaint is filed on 20.02.2007 and therefore right of the accused to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory as provided under section 13(2)(b) of the PFA Act is violated as the said sample would not be fit for any analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. It is submitted that therefore, the valuable right of the accused to get the sample analyzed through the Central Food Laboratory has been violated and/or taken away and therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings/complaint.