JAGDISH RAJATIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Cr. Regular Case No. 281/2010 "State v. Mahendra Chajer & Ors." pending in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Metropolitan, Jodhpur for the offences under Sec. 7(1) & (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50(1)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the nominee of the company M/s. Krishna Edible Oil Mills, Sriganganagar, which is engaged in the manufacture and trade in packaged mustard oil. The Food Inspector, Jodhpur collected a sample of sealed mustard oil bottles packaged by the petitioner's company from the vendor M/s. Arihant Trading, Mandore Mandi, Jodhpur on 10.01.2009. Learned counsel submitted that the sample of the sealed bottles of mustard oil was taken by the Food Inspector on 10.01.2009. Learned counsel pointed out the Public Health Laboratory's report dt. 30.01.2009 and contended that as per the said report, the packaging date of the sample was September 2008 and the 'best before date' was mentioned on the bottle as being six months. Learned counsel contended that the shelf life of packaged mustard oil had already expired in the month of February 2009. The Food Inspector for the first time sought information from the company regarding the details of its partners etc. by writing a letter in the March 2009 and the company immediately replied to the same. Learned counsel contended that by the time the information about the persons responsible for the affairs of the company was sought by the Food Inspector, the shelf life of the packaged food article (mustard oil) had already lapsed. Learned counsel pointed out that the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 17.07.2010 i.e. much after the expiry of the shelf life of the packages food article. Learned counsel thus relying on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Leela Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2 : 012(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1180 and Nemi Chand Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan reported in, 2012(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 830 contended that the prosecution having been initiated long after the expiry of the shelf life of the food article, the statutory right available to the accused for challenging the report of the public analyst as per Section 13(2) of the Act was violated. Thus, he prayed that the proceedings of the complaint so far as the petitioner is concerned, are liable to be quashed.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the time, which was consumed in filing the complaint was basically because of the fact that the details of the petitioner, who is the nominee of the manufacturing company, was not forthcoming, thus, it was submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of the delay in filing of the complaint because he was himself responsible for the delay occasioned in filing of the complaint.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the sample, which was taken by the Food Inspector from the retailer M/s. Arihant Trading, Mandore Mandi, Jodhpur was of packaged mustard oil. It was noted in the Form No. 3 prepared by the Public Analyst at the time of the analysis of the samples that the packaging date of the mustard oil was September 2008 and the 'best before date' was six months. The sample failed upon analysis conducted by the Public Health Laboratory, Udaipur vide its report dt. 30.01.2009. The accused undisputedly has a statutory right to challenge the report of the Public Health Laboratory by having the second sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory by filing an application under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The said right would obviously be defeated if the complaint itself is filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the food article. Admittedly, in this case, the complaint was filed in the Court concerned on 17.07.2010 and long before that the shelf life of the sample had already expired. Thus, the right available to the accused under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to challenge the report of the public analyst by having the second sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory stood frustrated by the time, the prosecution was initiated.