CHANDRA SHEKHAR LAKHOTIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Assailing the aforesaid proceedings. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the petitioners are doing the business of selling tea (food article). It is submitted that a sample of tea was taken by the Food Inspector concerned from the business premises of the petitioners concerned from the business premises of the petitioner on 23.8.1993 after making payment of requisite charges and the proceedings commence thereafter by sending the sample of the food article for analysis to the public analyst. It is submitted that the report of the public analyst dated 1.10.1993 was received by the Food Inspector whereafter the proceedings for sanction etc were initiated which was granted in 1996 and ultimately on 17.5.1996, the complaint was filed in the competent Court. It has also been submitted that the initiation was given to the petitioners regarding the sample of tea taken from their shop being adulterated on 20.5.1996 and the petitioners submitted application before the trial Court for challenging the said report of public analyst under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the PF Act. It has further been submitted that for a long time, the matter was kept pending and ultimately, the sample was deposited with the court below by the Food Inspector on 24.11.1999 for sending the same to the Central Food Laboratory. On this, the petitioners submitted yet another application for proceeding in accordance with Section 13(2) of the PF Act. But till date, the trial Court has not sent the second sample for analysis to the laboratory. Assailing these proceedings, it is submitted that now a period of nearly 17 years has passed since the sample was taken from the shop of the petitioners and by now, it can be assumed that the sample of tea must have deteriorated and as such, no useful purpose will be served by sending the second sample for analysis to the CFL after a lapse of 17 years from the date when the food sample was taken.

(3.) Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani and Anr., 2009 15 SCC 64it has been submitted that since delay which has been caused in the analysis of sample, was not attributable to the accused, the proceedings in the trial as such amount to violation of right of the petitioner to have the second sample of the food article examined under Section 13 (2) of the PF Act and the right to an expeditious trial and as such, the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the trial court should be quashed.