C SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O. P. has been brought forth, seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C. C. No. 266 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, taken cognizance by the said Court on the complaint lodged by the respondent-the Food Inspector, in charge (Panchayat Union, Erode), Government Primary Health Centre, Chitode, Erode District.

(2.) THE gist case of the respondent-complainant was that the toned milk food samples were lifted on 22. 7. 2003 and despatched to the Government Analyst, Guindy on 23. 7. 2003. The Government Analyst, by his letter dated 24. 7. 2003 informed the Local Health Authority that the toned milk food sample was broken in transit and requested to send the second portion of the sample, and the letter was received by the Local Health Authority on 30. 7. 2003. The second portion of the food sample was despatched to the Government Analyst's Office on 4. 8. 2003 and the same was received by the Government on 7. 8. 2003. The Government Analyst's Report No. 356/2003-2004 dated 26. 8. 2003 with Form III report was received by the Local Health Authority on 28. 8. 2003 and forwarded to the Food Inspector, and the Food Inspector, in turn sent a letter on 3. 9. 2003 to the third accused, seeking for the details in Form VIII and Form VIII nomination was received by the Food Inspector on 29. 9. 2003. The respondent submitted a letter to the Joint Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai on 2. 10. 2003, requesting written consent for launching prosecution. The said consent was received by the Local Health Authority on 23. 1. 2004 and received by the Food Inspector on 30. 1. 2004. The complaint was filed on 31. 3. 2004 and the same was returned to the Food Inspector on 2. 4. 2004. The same was resubmitted on 23. 4. 2004 and was taken on file on 13. 5. 2004. Notice as contemplated under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was sent to the petitioners on 18. 5. 2004 and thus the case was taken cognizance by the Court and the same is pending.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions before this Court. First one is that there has been undue delay in launching the prosecution, wherein the valuable right of the petitioners, seeking for the second analysis, was frustrated, since, within the period, the milk, which was taken on sample, was thoroughly decomposed and no purpose would be served. The second is that the complaint was lodged before the lower court on 31. 3. 2004 and the notice, what is contemplated under Section 13 (2) of the Act, should have been issued within ten days from the date of institution of proceedings; but, in the instant case, it was issued only on 18. 5. 2004, and it is mandatory that the provision under Section 13 (2) of the Act has to be complied with by the prosecution, and hence, the complaint has to be quashed.