SUDHIR KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 21st December. 1993 by the C.J.M. Rancbi in CIII-320/9J under Sections 16 (1), 9(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner, now pending in the Court of Sri S. Kumar, S.D.J.M. Ranchi.

(2.) The facts as set out in the petition are that the Food Inspector, respondent No. 2 on 30th April, 1993 at about 230p.m. took from the premises of Yuvraj Palace the sample of Haldi powder to have the same analysed by the analyst for Ranchi. the case was registered on 21st December, 1993 and cognizance of the case was taken by the C.J.M. Ranchi.

(3.) Before proceeding further in the case, it may be pointed out here that notice was accepted on behalf of the State in thi case, but no counter affidavit has been filed today. Mr. P.D Agarwal put in appearance at the time of hearing and stated that Mrs. Indirani Sen Cboudbary is to appear in this case on behalf of the State and that she is ill. Therefore, adjournment may be given That request was disallowed on the ground that there is panel of APPs in the office of the Government Advocate and when the case was fixed for hearing, the matter could have been entrutted to any APP. In this coptext, it may be mentioned that experience of this Court has been that when the cases are called out, the State counsel hardly put in any appearance, even though they are sent for and time is wasted of the Court for waiting them. This state of affairs have already been brought to the notice of the Government Advocate, but despite his assurance there is no improvement in the situation. After the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted his argument in the case. Mr. Triveni Mishra, APP put in appearance and requested for adjournment on the ground of filing counter affidavit. Those two contradictory reasons by two different APPs for adjourning the case sepak volumes of the way the office of the Government Advocate is treating the matter fixed by the Court. Moreover when service was accepted on behalf of the state, the case was ordered to be fixed on 9th January, 1995. and a request for adjournment could have then been made to file counter affidavit and since no request was made as appear from the record, the State should have taken care to file counter affidavit knowing fully well that the case is fixed for hearing on a particular date. Therefore, I have poceeded to hear the case on merits without any assistance from the State counsel