Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Godrej Industries Ltd vs Food Inspector on 24 July, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-5469 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-5469 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.07.2013
M/s Godrej Industries Ltd.
....Petitioner
Vs.
Food Inspector, Northern Railway, New Delhi
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
******
Present:- Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate,
for the respondent.
RITU BAHRI, J (ORAL)
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of complaint No.560-A of 2008 dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-6), under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act') and the summoning order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-7).
Brief facts of the case are that samples of Godrej XS Santra Swing (Exotic Orange Beverage) contained in six sealed packets of 200 ml. each were taken by the Food Inspector from the tea stall of one Vijay Kumar Saxena at platform No.2/3, Railway Station,Faridabad, on 19.05.2007. Thereafter, a notice Form-VI was served upon the said Vijay Kumar Saxena. The sample Prasher Ajay 2013.08.17 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-5469 of 2011 (O&M) 2 was packed on 07.04.2007. Thereafter, the Food Inspector prepared a spot memo (Annexure P-2). The above samples were divided into three equal parts having 400 mls. each and were wrapped in a thick brown paper and labeled as per rules. The samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, on 21.05.2007. As per report dated 21.06.2007 (Annexure P-3), the Public Analyst opined as under:-
"The sample contains black coloured foreign matter, whereas it should be free from the same. Hence, the sample is adulterated."
On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector, vide Annexure P-4, sought requisite consent under Section 20 of the Act from the Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway, New Delhi, to institute prosecution in this case. The said consent was granted vide order dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the present complaint (Annexure P-6) was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, and vide order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was summoned to face trial.
The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order on the short ground that the shelf life of the sample had expired in October, 2007, whereas the complaint was filed on 29.04.2008. Hence, the valuable right of the petitioner under Section 13 (2) of the Act to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, has been lost.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the petitioner had appeared before the trial Prasher Ajay 2013.08.17 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-5469 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Court pursuant to the summoning order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-7) and had made an application to get the second sample tested from the Central Food Laboratory, Delhi, therefore, the present petition for quashing of the complaint cannot be entertained.
In view of the fact that the shelf life of the sample had expired in October, 2007, this Court is of the opinion that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to relegate the petitioner to appear before the trial Court to face the proceedings in a trial, which ultimately will end in acquittal. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, Crl. Misc. No.M-36198 of 2005 (decided on 06.10.2010), had quashed the complaint on the ground that since the shelf life of the food article had expired, therefore, the valuable right of the petitioner to get the second sample tested from a laboratory had been jeopardized.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. and others, (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 190, has examined the provisions of re-testing of the second sample and observed that once the shelf life of the sample had expired, the maintainability of the complaint is not made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed as under:-
Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two Prasher Ajay 2013.08.17 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-5469 of 2011 (O&M) 4 opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In The State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., JT (1996) 10 SC 480, this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused...."
In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that since the shelf life of the sample had expired in October, 2007 and the complaint was filed on 29.04.2008, therefore, the valuable right of the petitioner to get the second sample tested from the Laboratory had been jeopardized. Thus, the complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed; the complaint dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-6) and the summoning order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P-7) are quashed with further proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.
(RITU BAHRI) 24.07.2013 JUDGE ajp Prasher Ajay 2013.08.17 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh