LAWS(ALL)-2012-6-5

LIPTON INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UP

Decided On June 01, 2012
LIPTON INDIA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Shri G. S. Chaturvedi, assisted by Shri Samit Gopal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant, the learned AGA and perused the record.

(2.) The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of criminal complaint case no.300 of 1991, State Vs. Mool Chand & others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saidpur, District Ghazipur, under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and to quash the order dated 9.8.1999, whereby the application for claiming discharge moved by the applicants was dismissed while allowing the application no.44-Ga moved by the Food Inspector, for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the Food Inspector(herein after referred to as the respondent no.2), taken samples of Lipton Golden Tea from the applicant's company on 5.12.1985 and sealed in three packets to be sent for analysis under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(herein after referred to as an Act). One sample was sent to the public analyst at Lucknow and the public analyst sent the report on 16.1.1986, declaring the tea as adulterated, stating therein that, "in the sample the quantity of some dust and the dust mixed with hydrochloric is higher than specified limit of maximum 8% and one percent respectively. Along with this in the sample the minute particles of iron to the tune of 320 part in per lac is also present". On the basis of the aforesaid report a complaint was filed against the applicants on 27.7.1987. The applicants were informed as provided under Rule 9A of the Act to move an application before the court of Special Magistrate, Saidpur, within ten days of the receipt of the letter for sending the sample to be examined by Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The applicant no.2 on 22.8.1987 within ten days from the receipt of the notice moved an application under Section 13(2) of the Act, which was allowed by the court on the same day and passed the order for calling the sample from the Chief Medical Officer. The State Government, instead of sending the second sample before the court preferred a revision before the Sessions Court on the ground that the order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed on 5.8.1999. The sample was received after twelve years before the court on 7.6.1991 but it could not be sent to the Central Food Laboratory as the prescribed fee was not deposited by the State. Without passing any order about the sample, the trial court passed the order under Section 244 Cr.P.C., hence the applicants moved an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. that the valuable rights of the applicants for not getting the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory, has been curtailed, hence they are entitled to be discharged. The State filed the objection that the sample was not sent as it was not traceable and it was traced out on 27.4.1998, even then the sample was not sent, and on 8.2.1999 an application was moved by the respondent no.2 for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The objection was filed by the applicants on 8.2.1999, that twelve years have been lapsed from the date of producing the sample in the court, now sending the sample would be a futile exercise as the tea leaves are perishable item and cannot be said to remained in the same texture and condition when the sample was taken. The said objection was rejected by the court below. The applicant again filed objection on 15.3.1999, the respondent no.2 filed a counter objection which was rejected by the court below by allowing the application of the respondent.