NARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by Narinder Singh and Thakar Singh for quashing the complaint filed against hem by the Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, and also for the quashing of the proceedings before the Court.

(2.) A sample of paneer was taken by the Food Inspector from the petitioner's shop on 9th November, 1982. As required under the Act, the sample was divided into three Parts, each of which was separately sealed. One of the parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The other two parts were retained by the Local (Health) Authority. The Public Analyst in his report dated 9th of December, 1982, opined that the sample contained fats to the extent of 49.13 per cent as against the prescribed standard of 50 per cent. On the receipt of this report, the Food Inspector filed a complaint under section 16(1) (a) read with section 7 of the Act on 12th of January, 1983, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. The petitioners were, summoned by the Magistrate to face trial in the said complaint. In compliance with section 13 (2) of the Act, the Local (Health) Authority sent the report of the Public Analyst to the petitioners which they received on 24th of January, 1983. The Local (Health) Authority also intimated to the petitioners that if they so desired they could send, the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for testing and to this effect they could make an appropriate application within ten days of the receipt of that intimation. The petitioners filed the application under section 13 (2) of the Act, on 31st of January, 1983, that is, within the prescribed period of ten days after the receipt of the intimation. The trial Court directed the Local (Health) Authority on 18th of February, 1983, to send the second part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory In pursuance of this direction, the sample was sent to the said Laboratory on 6th of the April, 1983. The Central Food Laboratory sent a report dated 15th April, 1983, intimating that the sample was decomposed and, therefore. It was not fit' for analysis. Despite this report, the trial Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners on 18th November, 1983, under section 16 (1) (a) read with section 7 of the Act.

(3.) IT is provided under section 13 (1) of the Act that the Public Analyst shall deliver a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis Sub-section (2) lays down that on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Local (Health) Authority shall send a copy of the same to the accused informing him that if he so desires he may wake an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Admittedly. the petitioners made such an application to the Court within the prescribed period of ten days. Sub-section (2-A) provides that when such an application is made to the Court, the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority to the Central Food Laboratory within five days from the date of receipt of such requisition It is then laid down in sub-section (2-B) that the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall send a certificate to the Court within one month from the receipt of the sample specifying the result of the analysis. In the present case the provisions of sub-section (2 A) of section 13 of the Act were violated. The Local (Health) Authority was required to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by it to the Central Food Laboratory within five days of the date of receipt of the requisition. The order was passed by the trial Court on 18th of February, 1983, but the sample was forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory nearly two months thereafter. that is, on 6th of April, 1983. The effect of this violation of sub-section (2-A) is now to be considered.