ROHIT MULL OF MUMBAI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for consideration in these petitions, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, is whether the prosecutionslaunched by the Food Inspectors against the petitioners should be allowed to continue on the face of the grievance of the petitioners that their right of having a second report from the Central Food Laboratory, in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act, for short) and which overrides the report of public analyst, has been frustrated by the food Inspectors.

(2.) THESE petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since the point of law involved in both is common, though the facts are slightly different.

(3.) THE petitioner No. 2 is a registered company and the petitioner No. 1 is a nominee of the said company nominated under section 17 (2) of the Act. Both the petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 1 in Criminal case No. 726/2004/a before the Court of jmfc, Panaji and accused nos. 9 and 8 in criminal Case No. 1422/s/2004/b before the JMFC, Mapusa.