BAGTAWAR MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case No.253/2001 (State vs. Bagtawar Mal) pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act of 1954").

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner on 22.9.2000 and collected the sample of iodised salt under the brand name of Srinath Salt manufactured by Ranga Salt Works, Station Road, Pokaran. The purchase bill dated 6.8.2000 was submitted by the petitioner right at the time of drawing of the sample. The salt sample was forwarded to the public analyst from where the report dated 11.10.2000 was received as per which the sample of iodised salt was found to be adulterated as not conforming to the standards laid down under Table 8.15-01 of the Appendix-B of the P.F. Rules. The report of the public analyst is to the effect that the salt sample was deficient as regards the iodine content.

(3.) The Food Inspector ultimately filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons on 22.9.2001 in the Court of A.C.J.M., Sojat for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. The petitioner upon receiving the summons appeared in the trial Court on 12.2.2002 and on the very same day, he submitted an application under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 praying that the second sample of the salt collected by the Food Inspector be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis as the petitioner was not agreeable with the report submitted by the public analyst. Surprisingly enough, despite the trial court having taken note of the application filed by the petitioner, chose to continue with the proceedings without passing any order thereon. When no action was forthcoming on the application moved by the petitioner, the petitioner again reminded the trial court regarding the application filed by him and the learned trial court by order dated 18.6.2010 proceeded to hold that the application under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 was not moved within the stipulated period of ten days and accordingly, rejected the same. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint pending before the trial court.