SELVAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner approaches this Court with a prayer to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.132 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and to quash the same.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is the sole accused, who is the dealer of Sampurna Maida. The complainant inspected the shop of the petitioner on 26.12.2006 and the sample was taken, which was sent to the Public Analyst on 03.01.2007. The Analyst's report has been received on 21.01.2007, but the complaint filed by the complainant is only on 08.03.2010. As per the report, the said sample is misbranded since it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 37 of P.F.A. Rules 1955 and hence, the complainant registered a case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7(ii) a 16 (1)(a) (i) r/w Sec.2(ix) (k) and also Rule 37 and for any suitable Sections of the P.F.A. Act 1954 and Rules 1955 A.18.02 for Maida and the complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.132 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the complaint filed against him.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint has been filed on 08.03.2010, but 13(2) notice has been issued belatedly and hence, the petitioner's choice for sending the sample to the Public Analyst has been curtailed; more over, there is no evidence to show that how and in what manner, the sample is misbranded; the complaint suffers from procedural illegality, because it has been filed belatedly i.e. after four years from the date of sampling the food and after a lapse of 3 years from getting analysis report and thus he prayed for quashing the complaint in C.C.No.132 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. To substantiate his case, he relied upon the following decisions: