CHAMURULAL AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner faces trial under S. 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act') for selling adulterated Jira (cumin seed).

(2.) *** *** ***

(3.) Undisputedly, sample was collected on 22-2-1984, distributed in three equal parts, kept in three bottles, one part was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The said sample on analysis was found to be adulterated, as evident from the report dated 22-3-1984. On receipt of the report, written consent was obtained and Prosecution Report was submitted on 3-5-1984 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur (described hereinafter as the SDJM). A copy of the analyst report was sent to the petitioner with indication that if he so desired, he may apply for getting the second sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The petitioner filed an application to that effect. It appears that sample was sent to the said authority along with sample collected in another case. The Director intimated the SDJM, that samples received on 28-12-1984 were sent without any signature on the accompanying memoranda. Since the memoranda were unsigned, they were not entertained by the Laboratory, and the SDJM was requested by letter dated 23-1-1985 to send the requisite memoranda duly signed. The Director alleged that there was no response to his letter in his reply to letter No. 997 dated 30-9-1989 sent by the Court. Copies of unsigned memoranda were sent to the court. A request was made by the Director to send two memoranda without further delay, to expedite analysis of samples. Ultimately, after compliance with requisition of the Director, the report was received from the Director on 29-1-1991 indicating that the part of sample received was in a decomposed condition, and as such, was unfit for analysis. The petitioner moved for sending the third part of sample to the Director for analysis. Reliance was placed on the provisions of sub-sec. (2)(c) of S. 13 of the Act for the purpose. The learned SDJM turned down prayer, on the ground that no useful purpose would be served, because the second sample was in a decomposed condition and was unfit for analysis. He relied on certain decisions to come to hold that after certain time sending the third sample would be futile exercise. He, therefore, did not feel it necessary and expedient to send the third part for analysis. Thereafter, accused moved for discharge, on the ground that there being no report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory and report of the Public Analyst having lost its force in the eye of law, he was entitled to an order of discharge. Prayer was turned down by the learned SDJM, on the ground that there is no justifiable reason. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order refusing to discharge him.