Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virkaran Awasty & Others vs State Of Haryana & Another on 28 January, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42656-2013
Date of Decision: 28.01.2014
Virkaran Awasty & others
...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*****
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 278/11 dated 4.8.2011 titled as 'GFI vs. Anup Sharma and others', pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat.
The petitioners are the Directors of M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The Food Inspector visited their premises at Bahalgarh, Sonepat and took sample of rice, which was sent to the public analyst. The report was received from the public analyst declaring the sample as adulterated and unfit for human consumption as it contained 1.8% of extraneous matter and 8.1% of damaged grains by weight against maximum prescribed limit of 1.0% and 5.0%.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Food Inspector had not followed the procedure for taking the sample. After taking the sample on 26.02.2011, it was sent on 28.2.2011 and reached the public analyst on 1.3.2011. The report was received by respondent No. 2 on 1.8.2011 and the prosecution of the petitioner was initiated. He has further argued that after filing of the complaint summons for service of respondent Satyawan 2014.01.31 11:29 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-42656-2013 2 could not be issued for a period of about two years due to non-filing of process fee and registered cover by the complainant. This delay in summoning the petitioner has caused prejudice to the respondent.
It has been conceded by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had not opted for sending of second sample for analysis. Sample was taken of Rice, which is non-perishable food item. They have not even put in appearance before the trial Court so far. The following of due procedure while drawing the sample, sending it to the public analyst; delay in summoning of petitioners are the matters, which are to be looked into by the trial Court, after recording evidence.
No reason is made out for quashing of the complaint or the summoning order by the learned trial Court. The petition has no merit.
Dismissed.
(SURINDER GUPTA) 28.01.2014 JUDGE 'Satyawan' Satyawan 2014.01.31 11:29 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh