SURESH PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Senior counsel along with Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued mainly two points in this case. Firstly, that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be set-aside on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in as much as, the petitioner was not granted due opportunity for the purposes of re-examination of the sample and by the time the steps could be taken, the self-life of the sample had already expired. The second point of argument is that the sample was seized from the premises of the company namely, Rakesh Masala Pvt. Ltd. and Rakesh Masala Pvt. Ltd. has not been made an accused, instead the accused no. 2 who is petitioner no. 1 before this Court, has been addressed as a C.N.F. agent and the petitioner no. 2 has been addressed as a seller.

(3.) Accordingly, Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the sample having been seized from the godown of the company and the company, having not made an accused in the instant case, no prosecution could lie against petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, who are accused nos. 2 and 3 respectively. He also indicates that although the company has not been made an accused, but the General Manager - Managing Director of the company has been made accused as accused no. 1, who is not the petitioner before this Court. The counsel further submits that there is no allegation so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned.