HYPERCITY RETAIL (INDIA) LTD. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions are decided by this common order as similar identical issues are involved. Reply has not been filed in CRM Nos. M -19939 of 2012 and 694 of 2013. Learned State counsel submits that there is no need to file replies in these cases and the reply filed in CRM No. M -19937 of 2012 may be permitted to be read in the other cases also. This is accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners. These petitions have been filed for quashing the prosecution of the petitioners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In each of these cases sample of fresh fruit (Banana and Papaya) was drawn and on having been sent for analysis, it was reported that it had been artificially ripened. It has further appeared on record that the unsent portion of the samples was preserved in formalin. After the prosecution was launched, petitioners were invited to exercise their right under Section 13(2) of the Act. However, instead of exercising the said right the present petitions have been filed.

(2.) THE first argument of learned counsel is based on Section 20(1) of the Act, which reads as under:

(3.) THE second argument of the petitioner centers around what it claims to be an infraction of its right to have an independent analysis conducted in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act. As per learned counsel, the product in this case being very perishable, the petitioners were deprived of their right to exercise the option of having a second analysis of the sample. I put it to learned counsel whether that would not mean that the entire Act would be rendered otiose for any fresh food product, learned counsel has fairly stated that this could not be intention of the legislature. He has, however, argued that the use of formalin for preserving the food items as in this case would be contrary to Part X of the Act because formalin is not one of the preservatives which is prescribed for fresh fruit. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 55 and more especially item 8, as per which to preserve fruit and fruit pulp only sulphurdioxide can be used and that to in the proportion of 350 parts per million. He has relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, of this Court and of other High Courts underscoring the importance of Section 13(2) of the Act. Learned counsel has fairly accepted the fact that there is no judgment which deals with fresh fruit or any other fresh produce, which is inherently perishable.