RAVI KUMAR SAHUKAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as "the Code") to quash the order dated 17.9.2003 of taking cognizance of offence under Section 16(1A) read with Sections 7 & 2 (ia) (e) (l) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as "the Act") passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi in the district of Gajapati in Case No.II(C) CC.04/2003 and issuance of process against the present petitioner.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that on 108.2003, while the Food Inspector, Gajapati visited the business point of the petitioner, he found the present petitioner and two others were selling beverages to the public for consumption. Suspecting the Thums-Up beverage to be adulterated, the Food Inspector, observing the formalities, purchased the beverages (3 X 600 ml) on payment of due consideration and sent the same, as sample, to the Public Analyst, Orissa for chemical examination. After receiving the report from the Public Analyst, Orissa through Chief District Medical Officer, Gajapati, it was found that said beverage was adulterated due to presence of bacteria and not fit for human consumption. Thereafter, the Food Inspector placed the matter before the sanctioning authority and after due sanction, the prosecution report was filed basing on which, cognizance of the offences was taken and process issued. Hence, the CRLMC.

(3.) Mr.Debasish Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the PR is filed, the cognizance of the offences is taken and notice has been issued to the petitioner. On 18.9.2003, the C.D.M.O, Gajapati sent an intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act along with the report of the Public Analyst, Orissa to the petitioner to make an application under Section 13(2) of the Act before the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi to get the sample re-analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Mysore within ten days from the date of receipt of that letter, if they so desire. According to him, Section 13(2) of the Act conveys right to the accused to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory and such report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst, Orissa. According to him, the provision under Section 13 is indefeasible right of the accused.