BIRENDRA KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.12.1998 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in Chandramandih P.S. Case No.81 of 1998, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby he had prayed for directing the local authority to supply the analysis report and for forwarding the sample for re-testing by the Director, Central Food Laboratory.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that on the basis of a written report, an F.I.R. vide Chandramandih P.S. Case No.81 of 1998 was instituted for offence under Section 16(1) and 10(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 against the petitioner. Some sample of mustard oil was collected from the business premises of the petitioner and was sent for analysis report. During examination, the sample was found not standard as prescribed under the provision of the Act. After receipt of the report, on the prayer made by the Investigating Officer, warrant of arrest was issued. After coming to know regarding the report as well as issuance of warrant of arrest, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui with a prayer to direct the local authority/informant to supply the alleged report of the analysis and also forward the part or parts of the sample enabling the petitioner to get it tested and examined by the Director, Central Food Laboratory for its test and report. It was further prayed that till the receipt of the report from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, all the processes and proceeding for arrest of the petitioner in Chandramandih P.S. Case No.81 of 1998 may be stayed. The learned Magistrate, by its order dated 2.12.1998, has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that there was no provision in law to stay the investigation of the case nor there was any provision to recall warrant of arrest without appearance of the accused persons. The learned Magistrate also noticed that even the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger.

(3.) BESIDES hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. For better appreciation, it would be appropriate to quote Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which is as follows : 13(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (3) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose, name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Sec.14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make 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 of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Laboratory.