Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

On 20.10.1986 the Food Inspector took a sample of Haldi (turmeric) in the form of packets. He took six packets of 100 grams each. The same were divided into three parts by putting two packets in each part. He sent one part to the Public Analyst, Punjab for analysis. After getting the report, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and others.

By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings. The short ground pressed has been that in complete violation of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the copy of the report was made available to the petitioner after more than 2 years of the report of the Public Analyst.

In the reply filed the contention raised is that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot raise any presumption unless he sends the second part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory.

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads :

"13(2). On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under subsection (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."

A glance at the above said provision shows that within 10 days on the receipt of copy of the report of the Analyst, the concerned persons have to be informed about it so that if they so desire may get the sample retested by the Central Food Laboratory. In ultimate analysis it is a question as to if any prejudice is caused to the accused or not. If no prejudice is caused, a few days delay may not prove fatal. This question had been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Nebh Raj v. The State (Delhi Administration) and another, 1980(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 191 and the Supreme Court held :

"In State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Shanumugham Chettiar and another, 1980(2) FAC 187, which we decided a few weeks ago there was a timegap of three months and five days between the taking of the sample and the analysis by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The "free fatty acid as oleic acid" content of the gingerly oil was found by the Director, Central Food Laboratory to be 6.2% as against the permissible 3%. We held that the timegap was not such as to justify an inference that the free fatty acid content of the gingerly oil had increased during storage. We therefore, convicted the accused in that case. But, in the present case the timegap is so wide that we cannot but hold that the free fatty acid content of the sample which was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory might have well increased during storage and that it is a possibility which is so probable as to be incapable of being ruled out. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. The bail bonds will stand discharged. The fine if paid will be refunded. We desire to add that there was no justification whatever for launching the prosecution more than two years after the sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst. To launch a prosecution at such a belated stage may result in causing harassment to the accused in some cases and may also result in genuine offenders escaping punishment. We are unable to see why simple cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be launched so late. Tardiness in these matters is inexcusable."

It is apparent from the findings recorded above that when there was inordinate delay, the sample could well have been decomposed. In fact in such like matters where there is an inordinate delay in violation of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, this Court has consistently been interfering because if prejudice is caused to the accused, in that event, the very basis of enacting Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ceases to exist. Of course if would be with the facts and circumstances of each case that one has to determine if prejudice is caused or not.

Reference to some of the precedents on the subject would make the position clear. In the case of Nand Lal v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Case 150 the sample was taken on 19.5.1987. The prosecution was launched on 21.1.1989. Relying on the decision in the case of Nebh Raj (supra) the proceedings as such were quashed. Similar view prevailed in the subsequent decision in the case of A.K. Roy and another. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 156.

More recently the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 659 took note of the fact that report of the Public Analyst was not supplied under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Supreme Court took note that if prejudice is caused to the accused, in that event, the conviction had to be set aside.

What are the facts of the present case ? They can well be again delineated. As already mentioned above, it was on 20.10.1986 that the sample had been taken from the petitioneraccused. The notice under Section 13(2) was sent to Rajinder Singh petitioner and is dated 1.9.1989. In this process more than two years time had elapsed before the notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was served. It shows that during this period the sample could well have been decomposed and the petitioner could rightly urge that prejudice has been caused. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the delay occurred. There is nothing to indicate that there could not be any decomposition of the sample. The period that has elapsed is inordinate. Keeping in view that carelessness on the part of the respondent, the only conclusion can be arrived at is to quash the proceedings and the complaint.

For these reasons, the petition is allowed. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings are quashed.