PURAN MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought to quash the criminal proceedings now pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 111/2005 on transfer from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 68/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short referred as, 'the Act').

(2.) THE necessary facts for the disposal of the present misc. petition are that on 18.04.1989 at about 8.15 a.m. in the morning, the Inspector of the Food Department on seeing a milk vendor while taking milk to supply to its customers in drums purchased 750 ml of milk after making payment to him. From the milk purchased, it was divided into three parts and were kept in small bottles, thereafter the same were sealed. After conducting necessary formalities at the spot, one of the sample was sent for its examination to the Local Health Authority, Alwar who in turn sent its report on 29.04.1989 and found the sample adulterated. It appears that a complaint against the accused -petitioner for committing offence under Section 7/16 of the Act was filed before the trial Court on 10.01.1991 and summons to the petitioner were issued. After service of summons for the first time the petitioner appeared before the Court on 29.08.2001. The petitioner moved an application for sending one of the samples to the Central Food Laboratory in the year 2003. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court observing that the Court was satisfied with the report of the Local Health Authority. It appears that the petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order rejecting the application filed the present misc. petition in the year 2001 and on 23.03.2007 the Court after admitting the petition stayed further proceedings pending before the trial Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned public prosecutor for the State while opposing the submissions made before me has submitted that proper efforts were made to traceout the whereabouts of the petitioner and ultimately he appeared in the Court after service on 18.07.2001, therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution. It is also submitted that in 21 months time the complaint was filed and since the sample was found adulterated, therefore, the accused petitioner has no right to claim relief to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him.