SEVRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 4.1.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No. 247/97 whereby application filed by the petitioners under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioners carry on the business of Vanilla Dairy Classic Ice Cream. Petitioner No. 1 is the vendor of the ice cream, petitioner No. 2 is the distributor and petitioner No. 3 is its manufacturer. On 21.6.1996, non-petitioner Shri L.S. Bhatnagar has taken a sample of the product i.e. vanilla dairy classic ice cream for analysis. It is alleged that said sample was found to be substandard by the Public Analyst. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst a complaint under section 7, 16(l)(a) (i), (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was filed. Local Health Officer issued notice to the present petitioners under section 13(2) of the Act stating that the sample taken by Shri Bhatnagar was found to be substandard and adulterated. It is also stated that if the petitioners are not agreed to the report of the Public Analyst, then the petitioners can challenge the report of the Public Analyst by making an application before the trial Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the notice. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 in exercise of his rights under section 13(2) of the Act applied before the trial Court within ten days for re-analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. Said application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 25.2.1997 and direction was given to the petitioner to deposit the necessary charges for re-analysis of the sample. Petitioner deposited the necessary charges for re-analysis of the sample. Sample was sent for re-analysis. On 5.3.1997 another part of the sample was produced before the trial Court and the trial Court passed order for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory and accordingly on the same date, sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Central Food Laboratory gave its report on 9.4.1997, which was received by the trial Court on 24.5.1997. In the said report it was mentioned that -

(3.) PETITIONER , therefore, filed an application under section 245(2), CrPC stating that valuable rights of the petitioner have got seriously affected/denied as the sample of the ice cream could not be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, he prayed that the petitioner may be discharged forthwith. Trial Court rejected this application, hence, the present revision.