RAMESH SHARMA Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C.the petitioners have assailed the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack, passed in 2(c) CC No. 176 of 1994 under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby their prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceeding was rejected.

(2.) M/s. Damodar Maharaj is a confectionary shop situated at Jaunliapati in the town of Cuttack. Petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor and petitioner No. 1, son of petitioner No. 2, was allegedly conducting the business of the said shop on the date of incident, i.e. 28-9-1993. Food Inspector of Cuttack Municipality suspecting various sweets namely, Kalakand, Raj Bhog, Pedda, etc. exposed for sale for human consumption, to be adulterated, purchased 600 grams from each item on payment in presence of witnesses for analysis, divided into three equal parts and kept each part in cleaned and dry glass bottles after adding required quantity of formalin, sealed all the sample bottles and then sent one part from such item to the Public Analyst for examination. The Analyser after having examined reported one of the sweets, viz., Raj Bhog to be adulterated. Thereupon the Food Inspector placed the said report along with relevant document before the Chief District Medical Officer (C.D.M.O.) Cuttack for obtaining his consent to launch prosecution. The C.D.M.O.on scrutiny of the report/documents and after applying his mind, gave written consent, whereupon complaint was filed against the petitioners under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act to stand their trial. Copy of the Analyst's report was also supplied to each of the petitioners as required under law. On being summoned by the Court, petitioners entered appearance through counsel and filed an application in the Court to get the sample of the food article, viz., 'Raj Bhog' analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. After long delay the local health authority, namely, the C.D.M.O., Cuttack, produced the second part of the sample in the Court, whereafter the same was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, on examination reported that the sample being decomposed was unfit for analysis. So, he intimated the Court to send another part of the sample for further analysis. In view of such report, the petitioners moved the learned Court below praying that since no prima facie case was made out against them, the proceeding be dropped. Upon hearing the parties, the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack, by his order dated 28-2-96 rejected the said prayer and it is against that order of rejection the present Misc. Case is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that the petitioners being dissatisfied with the report of the Public Analyst exercised their right at the earliest opportunity to get the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and it was due to laches of the local health authority there was inordinate delay in sending the same to the Central Food Laboratory and because of the delay, the food article had been decomposed for which it could not be analysed. In such a situation the report of the Public Analyst that the food article was adulterated loses its value. If the said report is excluded from consideration, there remains no material to prima facie hold that the food article in question was adulterated. In that view of the matter, it would be sheer wastage of Court's time to proceed with further hearing of the case and therefore, it is a fit case where the Court should in exercise of inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C.quash the proceeding.