S M MILKOSH LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Company has challenged the orders dated 8-3-2002, 26-7-2003 and 26-11-2005. By the first order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur had directed that the second sample of Ghee (the alleged adulterated food item) should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, provided that the petitioner Company would deposit Rs. 1,000/- for such examination. By the second order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-Company for modifying the order dated 8-3-2002. The petitioner-Company had requested that the condition of depositing of Rs. 1,000/- should be deleted and the sample should be sent for further examination by the Central Food Laboratory. However, such a prayer was declined by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. By the third order, the Reyisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner-Company.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 17-5-2005 the Food Inspector had taken sample of Ghee from the shop of the authorized seller and sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst, Jaipur. According to the report dated 22-6-2001, the Ghee was adulterated. On 3-10-2001 the Food Inspector informed the petitioner about the report of the Public Analyst. Immediately, on 12-11-2001 the petitioner moved an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act') wherein he prayed that the second sample of the Ghee should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for an independent examination. Vide order dated 8-3-2002 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to direct that the sample should be sent to the said Laboratory, but only if the petitioner-Company would deposit Rs.1,000/- as the expenses for getting the test done/The petitioner"claimed that they did not have any information about the order dated 8-3-2002 as it was passed ex parte. But when it came to its knowledge, they immediately filed an application on 26-6-2003 for amending the said order. However, vide order dated 26-7-2003 the said application was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur. However, vide order dated 27-11-2005 the Revisional Court was pleased to dismiss the said petition. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) The Act lays down an elaborate procedure after the report of the Public Analyst is delivered. Section 13 of the Act which deals with the procedure is as under :-