Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Brijgopal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:20198) on 6 May, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:20198] (1 of 5) [CRLMP-448/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 448/2019
1. Brijgopal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Maheshwari, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Firm Laxminarayan Brijgopal, Bus Stand,
Khinwsar, District. Nagaur (Raj.)
2. Smt. Sushila Khandelwal W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad
Khandelwal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 193, Opposite To
Railway Station, Firm Malik Khandelwal Trading Company,
Merta City, District. Nagaur. (Raj.)
3. Firm Baba Oil (Mil) Industries, G-1/16, RIICO Industrial
Area, Gegal, District. Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Anil Kumar Sharma, Food Inspector, Department Of Chief
Medical And Healthcare Officer, Nagaur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
Mr. Aditya Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
06/05/2024
The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred by the petitioners against lodging of complaint
dated 06.06.2011 and the order dated 06.7.2017 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur (hereinafter referred to
as 'the learned Trial Court') in Criminal Case No.235/2011 whereby
the learned Trial court rejected the application filed by the
petitioners seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against them.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 08:37:08 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:20198] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-448/2019]
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the
complainant - Anil Kumar Sharma (Food Inspector) inspected the
shop of the petitioner on 25.02.2009 and had a doubt over the
quality of red chilli powder under the brand name of "Shri Nirala".
Three samples of said chilli powder were taken, out of which, one
sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur and other two
samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Nagaur.
3 As per the report of Public Analyst, Jodhpur dated
02.02.2010, it was found that the sample was misbranded and
adulterated and the product did not meet the standard
requirements of FSSAI, therefore, the complaint was filed against
the petitioners. Vide notice dated 13.06.2011, it was informed to
the petitioners that a complaint has been filed against them and it
was further informed that the petitioners are at liberty to move
appropriate application so as to get the sample reanalyzed from
the Central Food Laboratory.
4. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioners filed an
application dated 29.06.2011 under Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act of 1954") before the learned Trial Court seeking
reanalysis of the samples from the Central Food Laboratory. The
application of the petitioners was accepted and as per the report of
Central Food Laboratory, Pune dated 19.11.2013, the sample was
found to meet the prescribed standards for Chillies (Lal Mirch)
Powder. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an application dated
09.09.2016 before the learned Trial Court to close the ongoing
Criminal Case No.235/2011. The application was rejected vide
impugned order and hence, the present criminal misc. petition.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 08:37:08 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:20198] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-448/2019]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order is passed without application of mind as the
learned Trial Court has failed to consider the analysis report of
Central Food Laboratory, Pune. As per the report, the sample of
chilli powder was found to meet the prescribed standards of
Chillies (Lal Mirch) Powder. It is further submitted that as per the
Section 13(3) of the Act of 1954, it is clear that the analysis report
of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report produced by any
Public Analyst. It is thus prayed that the complaint dated
06.06.2011 filed by the Food Inspector and the order dated
06.07.2017 passed by the learned Trial court may be quashed and
set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied
upon the following judgments:-
1. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1648/2019.
2. Delhi Administration Vs. Vidya Gupta reported
in MANU/SC/0441/2018.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is
submitted that the order passed by learned Trial Court is well
reasoned and does not call for any interference.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. Section 13 of the Act of 1954 lays down the procedure by
which the report of the Public Analyst is dealt with. Section 13(3)
of the Act of 1954 is relevant for deciding the present petition
which is reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"13: Report of Public Analyst:
...
(Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 08:37:08 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:20198] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-448/2019] (3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2B) shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-section (1).
..."
9. Sub-section (3) of the Section 13 states that the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under sub Section (2B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1), therefore the law is well settled that the Central Laboratory's report will have precedence over the report of the Public Analyst. There is no reason for the Court to refer to the contents of the report of Public Analyst. The Court is bound to consider the contents of the report of the Central Laboratory only. This view is no more res-integra in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf and Anr. reported in MANU/SC/0011/1999 wherein it has been held as follows:
"When the statute says that certificate shall supersede the report it means that the report would stand annulled or obliterated. The word "supersede" in law, means "obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void or inefficacious or useless, repeal". Once the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory reaches the court, the report of the Public Analyst stands displaced and what may remain is only a fossil of it. In the above context the proviso to sub-section (5) can also be looked at which deals with the evidentiary value of such certificate. If a fact is declared by a statute as final and conclusive, its impact is crucial because no party can then give evidence for the purpose of disproving the fact. This is the import of Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Thus the legal impact of a Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is three- fold. It annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains finality regarding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the case and it becomes irrefutable so far as the facts stated therein are concerned."(Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 08:37:08 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:20198] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-448/2019] Further, in the case of Alkem Laboratories (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para No.6, has held as under:-
"6...
Therefore the purpose of Section 13 is to give a second opportunity to Accused persons, against whom prosecution is initiated under the 1954 Act based on the Public Analyst's report, to get the relevant food sample tested again by the Central Laboratory. Since the Central Laboratory's report will have precedence over that of the Public Analyst, this is a valuable opportunity for Accused persons to claim exoneration from criminal proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above and on relying upon the precedent law laid down in Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Alkem Laboratories (supra), the present misc. petition is allowed. The complaint dated 06.06.2011 filed by the complainant- Amit Kumar Sharma (Food Inspector) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur as well as the impugned order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur in Criminal Case No.235/2011 are hereby quashed and set-aside.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 357-neha/-
(Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 08:37:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)