Jagdish Chand vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

A sample of Mayur Pan Masala was seized by the Food Inspector from the petitioner and after getting the same analysed from the Public Annalyst a complaint was filed in the court, for prosecution of the petitioner for an offence under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar. Intimation was given to the petitioner about the filing of the complaint and also about the report of the Public Analyst on 23.10.1985. On 29.11.1985 the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court praying that second part of the sample be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The application was contested by the State. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hissar dismissed the application vide his order dated February 28, 1986. Aggrieved by this order Jagdish Chand filed the present Revision Petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that although there was delay in filing the application still the trial Court should have condoned the same as by not sending the second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, a serious prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. The sample in this case was of Mayur Pan Masala and there was not any chance of its decomposition. They delay in filing the application was due to the illiteracy of the petitioner and for the sake of a fair trial the second sample should have been sent for analysis by taking a liberal view of the matter.

The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of State of Haryana v. Amar Nath, 1983(1) FAC 234 and R.N. Gujral and another v. Ram Rang Ratra, 1985 C.C. Cases 547. In the latter case it was held :

"Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is silent as to the effect of not making an application with in the period of ten days. That by itself clearly goes to show that it does not strictly speaking lay down a rule of limitation and since, in our view it lays down a procedure it ought to be construed liberally and unless there is an inordinate delay the court should not reject. That is not to suggest that the mandate of law should not be adhered to."

This authority is, however, not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the above mentioned case, the delay was only of three days and it was well explained, that is why it was held that the provisions of Section 13(2) should be construed liberally so as not to deprive an accused of his valuable right to get the second sample analysed. Similarly the other case i.e. The State of Haryana Versus Amar Nath (supra) does not help the prtitioner. The observations made therein entitle an accused to send the second sample for analysis after a period of ten days if he could not apply for the same within the prescribed time by some default on the part of the Local Health Authority or by the conduct of the prosecution but otherwise is not entitled to do so.

In the present case as soon as the complaint was filed against the petitioner he was informed of the same as also about the report of the Public Analyst. The intimation was given to him on 23.10.1985 whereby he was asked to apply to the court for sending second sample for analysis within ten days. He moved the application on 2.11.1985 i.e. after a period of thirty six days. He could not give any proper explanation for not applying within the prescribed time. Neither the prosecution nor the Local Health Authority was in any away responsible for causing this delay. When official act was performed in a regular manner and the petitioner failed to show that he suffered prejudice on account of any action of the Food Inspector, the trial Court was justified in declining the prayer made by the petitioner. The present Revision Petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.