AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of Criminal
Proceedings registered against the petitioner-company vide Criminal
Case No.5259/1995. Petitioner-company has been prosecuted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 7 / 16 of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act (In short "the Act").
Food Inspector inspected the shop of Mohan Trading Company
Gandhiganj Jabalpur. He found respondent No.2 Mr. Mohan Agrawal
selling Refined Sunflower Oil in wholesale. Food Inspector intended
to purchase Refined Sunflower Oil because he was in apprehension
that Refined Sunflower Oil was adulterated. He had issued a notice to
Mr. Mohan Agrawal and thereafter he purchased 375/- ml Oil and
three samples were prepared from aforesaid Oil and after completion
of formalities one of the sample was sent to the Analyst, State Food
Laboratory, Bhopal. According to report received from State
Laboratory the Oil was found adulterated. Food Inspector filed a
criminal complaint against the petitioner company, all the partners and
Managing Directors of the petitioner company. The trial Court
registered a criminal case against the petitioner company for
commission of offence punishable under Section 7 / 16 of the Act.
Petitioner filed the present petition for quashment of criminal
proceedings on the ground that self life of Oil was twelve months from
the date of its production. The sample of Refined Sunflower Swikar
Oil was taken by the Food Inspector on 16.3.1992 while the report of
Analyst is of dated 21.4.1992 and sanction for prosecution was granted
on 31.12.1993, thereafter complaint was filed. Notice under Section
13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was issued to the
petitioner, after expiry of one year from the date of taking samples.
Hence, the petitioner could not sent second sample for analysis, the
valuable right of the petitioner granted under Section 13 (2) of the Act
has been violated. Hence, the petitioner company could not be
prosecuted for aforesaid offence.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
company has argued the same. In support of his contentions Senior
counsel relied on the following judgment of the Court:
(i) Sri Prakash Desai Vs. State of M. P. 2015(2) FAC 441.
(ii) Prahlad Gattani Vs. State of M. P. 2012 (2) FAC 489.
(iii) ITC Ltd Vs. State of M. P. 2012 (2) FAC 441.
There is no dispute in regard to question of law that if the
company or an accused has been deprived from its/his/her valuable
right given under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act then criminal proceedings is to be quashed.
In the present case the petitioner has pleaded that self life of Oil
for which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector is one year.
Learned Senior counsel admitted the fact that self life was not
mentioned in the raper of the container in which the Oil was packed.
However, he has placed his reliance on certain articles and other
material to prove the fact that self life of Oil is of one year. In my
opinion, aforesaid questions could be decided by the Court after taking
evidence. The evidence to the some extent have been recorded by the
Court. Until it is proved that self life of the Oil was expired prior to
issuance of notice criminal Proceedings could not be quashed.
In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the
observation that petitioner can raise all the objections during trial and
after taking into consideration the evidence trial Court shall consider
the aforesaid submission.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.