Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxman Prasad Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2016
MCRC-22083-2015
(LAXMAN PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
16-02-2016
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This miscellaneous criminal case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused for quashing of complaint case and its entire proceedings registered as Case No.6180/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 7/16, 7(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the rules made thereunder:-
The registration of proceedings have been challenged on the ground that during conduct of laboratory tests by the public analyst, the shelf- life of the mineral water bottle had expired. As such, the report of the public analyst was vitiated. Moreover, the petitioner/accused was deprived of his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, of getting second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/s R. Jagdish Tea Company Vs. State of M.P. and another 2015 (I) MPWN Note 184 and by Gujarat High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2009 (1) Crimes 298.
However, a perusal of the record reveals that the incident dates back to the year, 2006. Thus, nine years have elapsed since institution of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the entire prosecution evidence in the case is over and trial is pending for defence evidence. It is true that the Court can interdict a proceeding in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; however, the petitioner failed to approach the Court after framing of charge and inexplicably waited for nine years to file this petition.
In aforesaid circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that prosecution evidence is already over, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter; therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this late stage.
Thus, without in any manner expressing an opinion one way or the other, upon the merit of the grounds taken by the petitioner in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petition is disposed of with directions that the petitioner shall be free to raise all grounds taken by him in this petition before the Trial Court at the stage of final arguments.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE