A.K. AAWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Short submission raised on behalf of counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Section 16 of the said Act is liable to be quashed and all proceedings on the said basis are also liable to be quashed.

(2.) THE basic ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the report No. 819 of 1994 of the Public Analyst filed along with the complaint does not indicate any other violation of prescribed parameter except free fatty acid contents which are stated to be 0.43%. According to the counsel the sample which was collected on 13.7.1994 was analysed by the Analyst after more than two months. The sample was received on 17.9.1994 and the report was prepared on 6.10.1994. The alleged excess parameters are resultant consequences of the unreasonable delay caused by the concerned complainant in getting the sample analysed as per the provisions of the Act. In support of her contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1993(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 14 and Kashmiri Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1994(1) C.L.R. page 61. In the case of Kashmiri Lal (supra) Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J. after relying upon various judgments of this Court had confirmed the view taken that the free fatty acid content would exceed the parameters because of delay and resultant moisture in air and exposure to light.