Patna High Court - Orders
Radhakant Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 9 August, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48193 of 2008
======================================================
Radhakant Yadav, son of Late Lakhan Yadav, resident of M/s Atma Ram
Vaishav Hotel, Station Chowk, P.S. Supaul, District-Supaul
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Chief Medical Officer, Supaul
3. The Food Inspector, Supaul
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
-------------------
12 09-08-2012Heard Sri Amish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mukeshwar Dayal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in P.F.A. Case No.1 of 2007 under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as the "P.F.A. Act") and under Section 7 of the Act, read with Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.F.A. Rule").
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in the case, submits that the article i.e. „Laddu‟, which was seized from the business premises of the petitioner, was not adulterated nor the 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48193 of 2008 (12) dt.09-08-2012 2/3 analysis report was provided to the petitioner within time and, as such, in view of violation of statutory provision, contained in Section 16 of the P.F.A. Act, the entire proceeding vitiates and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, Sri Amish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on Single Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2010(3) PLJR 120; Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. He submits that for prosecuting the petitioner, it was necessary to indicate in the prosecution report as well as in the analysis report that the seized article was adulterated and injurious to health. In absence of those ingredients, the prosecution under the provisions of P.F.A. Act is not permissible.
In this case, a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State. In the counter affidavit, specific assertion has been made that prior to the filing of the prosecution report, the analysis report was provided to the petitioner. The analysis report was supplied to the petitioner on 08.02.2007 and after waiting for some time, finally prosecution report was filed in the month of June, 2007. According to Sri Mukeshwar Dayal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, sufficient time was provided to the petitioner.
After going through the material available on record as well as stand taken in the counter affidavit, the Court is of the 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48193 of 2008 (12) dt.09-08-2012 3/3 opinion that the analysis report makes it clear that the „Laddu‟ was adulterated , which is evident from the report of Combined Food & Drug Laboratory, Patna , which has been brought on record at page-20 of the petition.
There is no infirmity in the order of cognizance or prosecuting the petitioner and, as such, the petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/-