DADAJEE DHACKJEE LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Criminal Application is preferred by the directors of Registered Company under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and set aside the criminal complaint No. 3036/1999, now pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Himmatnagar, on the ground that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners and no complaint could have been filed against the Directors of the Company under the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act' ).

(2.) MR. Trivedi, learned advocate, for the petitioners submit that petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are senior citizens and suffering from various ailments and, therefore, unable to appear be fore the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending. Not only that but as stated by the Food Inspector (complainant) who had purchased six plastic bottles (Tomato Red Synthetic Food colour) DD Brand, each contents 100 grams and total of 600 grams, for the purpose of sending the same to the laboratory for testing the sample under Form VI of the rules of the The Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954, now do not state that whether there is any violation of rules or not. Not only that but the petitioners were not informed about a letter which was not in a prescribed formate and addressed to Public analyst for analyzing the sample under the act and, therefore, the petitioners are deprived by their right. Even the bills do not disclose the information regarding goods, nature of product from which manufacturers, batch number, rate etc. and according to the petitioners so called bills prima facie appear to have been tempered. It is further submitted that the standard prescribed for the colour of the sample drawn by the Food inspector are within the permissible limit and the analysis of the report indicate that total dye contained is not hazardous to human life, therefore, continuation of proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Thus, depriving the petitioners to get copy of the report of the result of the public analyst before the Central Food Analyst amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, this is a good case on merit to exercise power under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) MR. K. T. Dave, learned APP, appearing for the respondent State has vehemently opposed exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and according to him the compliant was filed, as early as, in the year 1999 on the basis of procedure undertaken pursuant to the samples which were drawn in the year 1997 and report of the sample by the Public Analyst dated 13. 1. 1997 clearly indicates that the samples do not confirm to the provisions of Rule 38 of Prevention of food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the pfa Rules, 1955 ). Therefore, the complaint preferred by the Food Inspector clearly reveals that the Food Inspector had followed the procedure under the Rule. Not only that but shop owner had purchased the goods manufactured by the petitioners and, therefore, there is clear breach of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules and complaint lodged do not require to be quashed in exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after about 10 years.