DURGESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the sample of Ghee, manufactured by the manufacturing company, on being seized from the business premises of the petitioner, was sent before the Chemical Analyst. The Chemical Analyst after analyzing found the material adulterated one. Accordingly, a report was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 16(i)(a)(i)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was taken, but the prosecution is bad for the reason that one of the samples, collected, should have been provided to the petitioner so that the petitioner in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 13(2)(d) of the Act could send for its analysis before the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata but in absence of statutory requirement being followed by the prosecution, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In view of the submission, let the complainant on being impleaded as' opposite party No. 2 be issued notice on filing requisites etc. under registered post with acknowledgment due by Friday.

(2.) MEANWHILE , learned counsel for the State may take instruction in this regard and may file counter affidavit. Let this case be listed under the same heading on 25.3.2014 in anticipation of appearance of the opposite party No. 2. Directions issued.