HEERALAL Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. for quashment of the proceedings of case No. 2355/94 whereby the petitioners have been prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) In short, case of prosecution was that the respondent No. 1 Food Inspector appointed by the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners and other accused persons alleging that on 29.3.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. respondent No. I inspected a fast food shop known as "Crack Ice" situated at 56, New Palasia, Indore. It was alleged that during course of investigation the Food Inspector found that ice-cream was stored in the shop for sale. In the complaint it was alleged that one Sunil Kumar Jain was in the management of the shop and one Anil Mahajan was the proprietor of the shop. It was alleged that sample of 900 gm. of ice-cream called as 'King Alphonso' was purchased for a sum of Rs. 126.00 by the respondent No. 1 for analysis from the accused Sunil Kumar Jain and obtained the receipt. Further case of prosecution was that the sample which was taken was divided into three equal parts and filled in three bottles, which were sealed after addition of preservative. It was alleged that one of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Bhopal for analysis and the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Indore. It was alleged that vide report dated 11.5.1993 the Public Analyst declared that the sample did not conform to the standard laid down in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as such adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst was received by the Local Health Authority on 28.5.1993. Thereafter on 6.4.1994 i.e. after lapse of one year approximately from the date of receipt of the sample, a complaint was filed by the respondent No. I before the learned CJM, Indore: In the said complaint Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain who was running the shop at the relevant time and Mr. Anil Mahajar who was the proprietor of the shop and Kala Modi who was the proprietor of Modi Agencies, who has supplied the ice-cream to the shop, were impleaded as accused. It was alleged that petitioner No. 2 at the relevant time was the person nominated by the petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the petitioner No.1 was the manufacturer of the ice-cream. It was alleged that the petitioner and other accused has committed an offence which is punishable under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was prayed that after taking cognizance of the offence the petitioners and other accused persons be convicted.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Chitle, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that after notice the petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. for quashment of the proceedings which was numbered as 1859/04 and was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2004 holding that the prayer of the petitioners for quashment of the proceedings is premature. Learned Counsel submits that the status of each of the accused is that the accused No. 1 Sunil Kumar Jain and Smt. Kala Modi are absconding, while present petitioners are appearing regularly. It is submitted that the case was listed before the learned Court below from time-to-time and 70 dates has been fixed till to this date, but the trial is making no progress since 1994. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is aged 70 years and at present is residing at Bangalore, while petitioner No. 2 was earlier residing at Mumbai. It is submitted that since a considerable time has lapsed and the evidence has yet to start in the matter, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Rakesh Saxena Vs. State, 1987 SCC (Cri.) 156 whereby Honourable Apex Court has quashed the proceedings on the ground that any further continuance of the prosecution after lapse of more than six years in the case of the appellant who was merely a trader at the lowest rung of the hierarchy in the Foreign Exchange Division of the Bank is uncalled for, particularly, in view of the complicated nature of the offence charged. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Srinivas Gopal Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1988 (4) SCC 36 wherein Honourable Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that delay in investigation and commencement of trial. In this case investigation commenced in Nov. 1976 and the case was registered on completion of the investigation in Sept. 1977, while the cognizance was taken by the Court in March 1996. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, I (1992) CCR 495 (SC) : (1992) 1 SCC 225 , wherein Honourable Apex Court has observed that propositions meant to serve as guidelines. It was further observed that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard-and-fast rules. It was further observed that: