AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of entire
proceedings of Criminal Regular Case No.217/2011 pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Shahpura, District Bhilwara for the offence under
Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant misc. petition are noted herein below for ready reference:
The Food Inspector, Shahpura collected samples of mixed milk from the Chilling plant being operated by a company named Kisaan Dairy,
Begu Road, Shahpura, District Bhilwara of which, the petitioners are the Manager and Directors. The first sample of milk collected by the Food
Inspector was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Ajmer who analysed the sample and issued a report dated 17.05.2011 opining that the same was
adulterated. The complaint came to be lodged in the Court of the ACJM, Shahpura on 30.07.2011. Immediately upon appearing in the trial court,
the accused petitioner Mahesh Yadav submitted an application dated 25.08.2011 for re-analysis of the second milk sample through the Central
Food Laboratory by taking recourse of the procedure provided under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. The trial court accepted the application by
order dated 11.10.2011 and directed the CMHO to present the second milk sample to the court so that appropriate steps for transmission thereof
to the CFL for reanalysis could be undertaken. However, despite a period of nearly six years having lapsed from such direction, the second
sample appears not to have seen light of the day on which, the petitioners herein have approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition
seeking quashment of the complaint and their prosecution on the ground that the unreasonable and unjustified delay in forwarding the second milk
sample to the CFL, for challenging the Public Analyst?s Report has irrevocably prejudiced their statutory right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act
and hence, the proceedings of the complaint should be quashed.
The matter was taken up by this Court on 27.11.2017 and an explanation was sought from the trial court as to why the second milk sample had
not been forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory. A report dated 12.12.2017 has been received from the court of the ACJM, Shahpura,
District Bhilwara indicating that the counsel representing the accused Mahesh Yadav moved an application dated 25.08.2011 under Section 13(2)
of the PFA Act. The matter was posted to 11.10.2011 for arguments on the application. The trial court directed on the very same day that the
second sample be summoned and be forwarded to the CFL for reanalysis. However, no requisition was ever issued to the CMHO Office for
presenting the second sample so that further steps to send the same for re-analysis to the CFL could be undertaken as per law. The trial court has
ofcourse noted in its explanation that the accused other than Mahesh Yadav never moved an application under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. In
this regard, it may be mentioned here that the Kisaan Dairy, its Manager Mahesh Yadav and the remaining accused stated to be its Directors are
being prosecuted in the complaint. The Manager Mahesh Yadav (petitioner No.1) moved the application under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and
thus, it has to be presumed that the application was moved on behalf of the company and its Directors as well. The facts noted above indeed
reveal a totally lackadaisical approach by the court as well as the counsel representing the accused. Needless to say that the accused would always
try to look out for every avenue of defence by taking advantage of the procedural loopholes and thus, their conduct in not pursuing the matter after
the order dated 11.10.2011 can be excused. However, the lackadaisical approach of the Presiding Officers, who were posted in the court
concerned during this period, and the conduct of the court staff, is not condonable. In all probability, even the connivance of the court''s staff to
give undue advantage to the accused cannot be ruled out.
Be that as it may. The fact remains that owing to the lack of promptitude on part of the court, a period of more than 6 years has lapsed since the
milk sample was collected. As held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of GirishBhai Dhayabhai Shah vs. C.C. Jani & Anr, reported in
(2009)15 SCC 64, delay in forwarding the second food sample for analysis to the CFL prejudices the statutory right available to the accused
under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. As a consequence, allowing proceedings of the impugned complaint to be continued is not at all warranted.
Accordingly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. All further proceedings of the Criminal Regular Case No.217/2011
pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Shahpura, District Bhilwara are hereby quashed.
However, before parting with this order, this Court feels essential to issue a direction to the registry to circulate a copy of this judgment to all
District Courts in State of Rajasthan so as to ensure immediate inspection of the files of complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
and to ascertain that the applications field under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act do not go unattended and are taken to their logical conclusion
without any delay. The courts concerned seized of the matters under the PFA Act are directed that the application filed under Section 13(2) of the
PFA Act shall be marked with a red flag and will be continuously monitored till the same reaches to its logical conclusion.