Mrinal Kanti Das vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 8.8.2000 passed in C2 case No. 2839 of 2000 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner.

The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector collected sample of Ice Cream from M/s Mitra Enterprises, Jamshedpur. The said sample was sent before the Public Analyst for Chemical Analysis. Public Analyst having analyzed the sample submitted its report on 1.10.1999 but the complaint was filed on 25.8.1999. On filing complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner, vide order dated 8.8.2000. That order is under challenge. Upon appearance, the petitioner did file an application before the court with a prayer to direct the prosecutor to supply copy of the report and also the sample. An order was passed directing the prosecutor to furnish the copy of the report and also the sample but that was not done, in spite of repeated order being passed. The court without supplying the sample or the report took cognizance of the offence as aforesaid which, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is quite illegal as statutory requirement has never been fulfilled.

Learned counsel by referring to the provision as contained in Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act submits that upon submission of the report, the prosecution was duty bound to supply the copy of the report and also the sample so that the petitioner may get it analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory. Since that has not been done in this case, the prosecution gets vitiated and thereby the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case but no plea has been taken with respect to furnishing of the report of the Analyst or the sample to the petitioner.

Thus, the situation which has emerged is that sample of Ice Cream on being collected by the Food Inspector was sent for chemical examination before the Public Analyst who having analyzed it submitted its report but neither the report nor the sample of the Ice Cream was supplied to the petitioner and thereby the petitioner was prevented from getting it analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory, though it was mandatory on the part of the prosecutor to give report and also sample of Ice Cream to the petitioner, in view of the provision as contained in Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which reads as follows;

"13. Report of Public Analyst--(1) The Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory."

As I have stated above that neither the sample nor the report of the Public Analyst was given to the petitioner, the right given to the petitioner under Section 13 has been denied and thereby entire prosecution gets vitiated.

In this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah Vs. C.C. Jani and Another, . Accordingly, the order dated 8.8.2000 taking cognizance of the offence is hereby quashed. Hence, this application stands allowed.