Nabi Mohammad vs State of U.P.& Ors.

Khem Karan, J.—Heard Sri R. Murtaza holding brief of Sri I. Murtaza, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Brijendra Singh, the learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

The petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing criminal proceeding pending in the Court of Ilnd Additional Chief Magistrate (Economic Offence), Raebareli in criminal case No. 1191 of 1992 under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

It is stateu ''hat the opposite party No. 2, K.P. Gupta took the sample of Jeera from the shop of the petitioner on 811 85 and after necessary formalities filed a complaint in the Court of learned Magistrate on 20288, for punishing the petitioner under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The accused petitioner moved an application on 28388 under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for sending the sample for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratories, Calcutta. The learned Magistrate allowed this application on 14488 and asked the prosecution for sending the sample to the Court, so that the same may be sent to the Central Food Laboratories for re analysis. It is alleged that the prosecution and the health authority did not produce the sample upto the date of the filing of this petition, in spite of various opportunities having been given by the learned Magistrate. In support of this allegation, the petitioner has filed extract of the ordersheet of the Court which is Annexure No. 3, it reveals that right from 23588 to 8792, the Court fixed a number of dates for producing the sample, for being sent to the Central Food Laboratories but the prosecution or the health authority could not produce the same. What surprising it that no explanation was given to the Court for not producing the sample in compliance of the earlier orders of the Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the accused is being unnecessarily harassed without any steps being taken by the prosecution to proceed further with the matter. He has also submitted that by now that sample must have deteriorated and must have been rendered unfit in reanalysis. He also submitted that it is settled law that denial of opportunity to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vitiates the prosecution and according to him it is fit case where it should be quashed on that ground.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to 5. Arunachalam v. SL.te, 1994 (1) EFR 83 (Madras); Hanuman \\. State ofRajasthan, 1998 Cri LJ 42 and State of Punjab through Food Inspector v. Deboo, 1990 (2) FAC 177. He also draws the attention of the Court towards the recent judicial pronounce ment of the apex Court rendered in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1998 ACC 834 (SC); 1999(1) JIC 131 (SC), Pepsi Food, 1999ACC(Criminal) 1400.

This case appears to be one in which it could be said that the prosecution case has become vitiated, on account of cellous attitude of the prosecuting agency, in not responding to the orders of the Court and in not making the sample available to the Court so as to be sent for reanalysis. After lapse of a number of years, must have rendered unfit, for reanalysis. There was no fault on the part of the accused in exercising his option. Soon after the filing of the complaint in the Court he excused his option. The prosecution has not taken trouble to inform the Court as to what was the difficulty, in providing the sample to the Court for being sent to the Central Food Laboratories. The Food Inspector who is arrayed as opposite par �/No. 2 in this petition, has not cared for assisting the Court and putting the circumstance which prevented him or the health authority from producing the sample, for the purposes of beingsent to the Central Food Laboratories. The matter is now 14 years old. It is well settle that speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights. The apex Court has issued general directions for closing for certain types of cases. The State Counsel says that in spite of his various letters to the Chief Medical Officer, Raebareli none came to apprise him of the circumstances, which prevented the Food Inspector or the other authorities from producing the sample for reanalysis, I am of the view that denial of right under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, is bound to fail the prosecution and there is no use in keeping alive such a proceeding. To allow the prosecution to go on may result in unnecessary harassment and humiliation of the accused. The criminal proceeding referred to above deserves to be quashed and so this petition is allowed and the criminal proceeding of Case N o. 1191 of 1992 under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are hereby quashed.

Let the record received from the trial Court be sent back, together with copy of this judgment. Petition allowed.