LALA RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Lala Ram Prasad has filed this application and has prayed that this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. quash the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly dated April 29, 1978. The applicant carries on the business of khandsari and has a shop situate in mohalla Nai Basti in the city of Bareilly. In the said premises he also manufactures khandsari sugar. The food inspector V. K. Sharma, inspected the premises occupied by the applicant on Nov. 22, 1976 and took samples of khandsari sugar from the stocks maintained by the applicant. The samples were sent to the public analyst and a report from his office was received on Jan. 31, 1977. The Public Health Authority served a notice on the applicant asking him that he may if he so desires have the sample tested by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. On Feb. 3, 1977 the applicant applied to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate requesting him to send the sample for purposes of testing to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. On this application sealed bottles containing the samples were summoned in the court. At that stage the applicant raised objection that phials containing samples did not bear the labels as required by Rule 15 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules framed thereunder are referred the rules. He also raised an objection that the seals on the phials had been tampered with and were not visible and the same were not properly labled. He also made an application praying that he may be permitted to take photographs of the phials. The application was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated May 31, 1977. The applicant then moved another application before the Magistrate stating that the phials containing the samples had been tampered with and were not in accordance with rules. That application was also rejected by the Magistrate by his second order passed on May 31, 1977 which reads as follows:-

(2.) The application has been opposed on behalf of the State and the Food Inspector who is attending the case on behalf of the State has filed a counter affidavit.

(3.) The present application was moved in this court on Dec. 20, 1978. While issuing rule nisi further proceedings in the case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate were stayed by this court during the pendency of the proceedings before this court. It is, therefore, evident that the applicant has been able to stall the examination of the samples taken by the food inspector for over three years by making different applications before different courts.