HIRANAND AGARWALLA Vs. AREA FOOD INSPECTOR DIBRUGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved at the framing of charge against the petitioner under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter "the Act", this Court has been approached in revision to quash the proceeding. The point urged is that in view of the denial of the right to the petitioner u/s. 13(2) of the Act, the continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court inasmuch as the trial is bound to end in acquittal in view of the aforesaid denial.

(2.) What happened was that some samples of wheat were collected on 27-11-75 as would appear from the offence report. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the sample did not conform to the standard, a complaint was lodged on 25-3-76, when an order of summoning the accused was passed fixing 22-4-76. The order sheet shows that the summonses were not taken out for that date and so another date was fixed for appearance of the accused. The date so fixed was 14-6-76 on which date he did appear. Thereafter on 30-7-76, he filed a petition u/s. 13 of the Act with a prayer to send a part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. This was allowed. On the next date, however, the Director of the Laboratory informed that the sample was decomposed and as such was unfit for analysis. The report further shows that Director asked for sending the counterpart of the sample for analysis and report. The Court accordingly directed the Food Inspector to produce the sample on 10-9-76, and on such production the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory after finding the seal etc. in tact. It was reported subsequently on 8-12-76 by the Director that that sample too was received in a decomposed condition and as such was not fit for analysis. It was further stated that defect in packing appeared to be responsible for earlier decomposition of the sample. On these facts, it was urged before the learned trial Court that the case was not fit for framing of charge and the accused merited discharge in view of the denial of right under section 13(2) of the Act. This was not accepted and the charge as aforesaid was framed.

(3.) Shri Barua for the petitioner has principally relied in this connection on the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970. In that case, it was held that the right conferred by section 13(2) of the Act is a valuable right because the certificate issued by the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and the same gives the accused a right to have the sample analysed by greater expert for the satisfaction and proper defence. It was then observed that where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, say, delay in prosecution, as a result of which the sample is highly decomposed and could not be analysed, the vendor is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst even though that report continues to be in evidence in the case. It was, however, observed that different considerations may arise if the right gets frustrated for which the prosecution is not responsible.