PRAKASH CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 05.5.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 04/1992 framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner by his order dated 10.6.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 24/2008.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Bikaner is said to have taken samples of mustard oil manufactured by the petitioners firm M/s. Oasis Industries Limited, F. 42, Bichhwal Industrial Area, Bikaner on 16.9.1991. After paying the requisite price, the samples of mustard oil were purchased by the Food Inspector from the petitioners premises and thereafter one part of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. A report of the Public Analyst was received on 26.9.1991, as per which the sample of mustard oil was found to be adulterated because of mixing of non-permissible ingredients and also because the same was not conforming to the prescribed standards. The Food Inspector thereafter sought prosecution sanction and after intimating the petitioners about the report of the Public Analyst, as per Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, "the Act"), a complaint was filed on 16.01.1992 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner praying for prosecution of petitioners for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act. The petitioners appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and filed an application for sending the second sample of the food article (mustard oil) to the Central Food Laboratory on 09.10.1992. The trial Court, however, appears to have taken no action on the said application which was kept pending for almost 14 years. After a lapse of 14 years, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the order dated 17.8.2006, directed calling of the second sample from the Office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bikaner and thereupon the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. From the Central Food Laboratory, a report dated 05.02.2007 was received, wherein no non-permissible ingredient has been found in the second sample of oil but the oil sample was found to be not in conformity with the prescribed standards for mustard oil as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Act by the order dated 05.5.2007 and the order framing charge has been affirmed in revision by the learned Revisional Court by its order dated 10.6.2008. It is against the said orders that the instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the charges as well as the proceedings going on against the petitioners in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners right to have the second sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory has been prejudicially affected in this case because of the delay which has been occasioned in the examination of the sample. It is submitted that the petitioners filed the application for examination of the second sample well in time, i.e. on 05.01.1992 but it is on account of the delay and laches on the part of the court/prosecution that the second sample could not be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for a period of about 16 years. It is submitted that the report of the Central Food Laboratory, as per which the mustard oil has been found not up to the standard now after a period of 16 years, cannot be read against the petitioners because it is a scientific fact that a sample of oil, after being stored for a period of about 16 years, is bound to have natural changes/deterioration in its quality. It is submitted that the delay in examination of the second sample of food article (mustard oil), which is to the extent of 14 years, vitiates any further proceeding being undertaken against the petitioners as being violative of their fundamental right of a speedy trial. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order framing charge against the petitioners, as well as the the proceedings going on against the petitioners, deserve to be quashed.