S PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of the complaint case No.2259/2007 registered for the offence under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short " P.F. Act" for the sample of packed huldi (turmeric) powder from one Ratan Kumar, Proprietor of Bharat Agencies, Chief Distributor, Brookebond Chana Masale, Madhav Ganj, Lashkar, Gwalior.

(2.) Facts of the case in short are that on 16.11.1990, the respondent/Food Inspector visited the office of Bharat Agencies, Madhav Ganj, Lashkar, Gwalior and took sample of various articles including turmeric powder. The present case was filed for the sample of turmeric powder. Such powder was sent to the Public Analyst and it was found to be adulterated and, therefore, after getting sanction from the concerned authority, a complaint was filed by the respondent. The applicant filed an application under Section 13(2) of P.F. Act and vide order dated 22.10.1991, application was allowed and it was directed that the complainant shall submit the second part of sample so that it should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for its analysis. Second part of sample could not be produced before the Court upto 28.02.1997 and, thereafter, the notice were issued to the other accused persons and ultimately second part of sample was not deposited by the respondent before the trial Court. Vide order dated 09.12.1999, the accused Ratan Kumar was discharged by the trial Court and, thereafter, matter was proceeded.

(3.) After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned senior advocate for the applicant has shown grievance of the applicant on two counts. Firstly, that according to the report of Public Analyst, sample was marginally adulterated, in the light of standard prescribed in Article A.05.20.01 of appendix 'B' of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and therefore for such a marginal defect no trial could be initiated. Secondly, that the valuable right of the applicant under Section 13(2) of the P.F. Act was side tracked and, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction of the applicant in the case, hence, it is prayed that the proceedings of the trial Court be quashed under the powers of this Court given in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, the learned senior advocate for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of "Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ghisa Ram" AIR 1967 S.C. 970 to show about the right of accused under Section 13 (2) of the P.F. Act and consequent effect if such right is denied. The reliance has also placed upon the order passed by the Apex Court in case "Noratan Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan" 1995 (1) FAC 126.