MALI RAM AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been prosecuted for an offence under Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE case is pending before S. D. J. M., Jamshedpur. It is admitted position that sample of turmeric was taken for analysis by the Food Inspector on 4-9-1987. THE sanction for prosecution was granted on 30-8-1983 and prosecution report was filed on 27-9-1989. Thus, there is inordinate delay for more than two years in launching the prosecution. This is not all. THE prosecution report annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. THE complaint filed by the Food Inspector shows that there is no mention as to how the Haldi was adulterated. THE report of the Public Analyst not sent along with the complaint.

(2.) IT is mandatory requirement under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 that copy of the report of the Public Analyst shall be forwarded to the accused informing him that if he so, desire he can make application before the Court within 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. The complainant did not comply this mandatory provision. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act which further requires that if the accused makes an application for analysis by the Central Laboratory the sample shall be sent within fifteen days of the requisition.

(3.) THIS application therefore, must succeed. The prosecution of the petitioner in C-4 Case No. 6/89 pending in the Court of S. D. J. M., Jamshedpur is hereby quashed.