Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Cargill India Private Limited vs State Of Haryana And Another on 8 August, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M-28799 of 2012 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-28799 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 8.8.2013.
M/s Cargill India Private Limited ........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr. R.K.Trikha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 4.9.2012 (Annexure P-1) issuing process against the petitioner company under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956 ('Act' for short) and all the consequent proceedings in complaint case No. 404 of 2005, dated 19.4.2005 titled G.F.I. Versus B.C.Pathak and others (Annexure P-2).
The case of the complainant-Government Food Inspector, in brief, was that on 27.11.2004 at about 2.00 p.m., when he had inspected the premises of B.C.Pathak, Shop No. 48- 50, Sector-15, Faridabad, B.C.Pathak was found in possession of 10 sealed packets of one litre each of Refined Vegetable Oil (Nature Fresh) meant for sale for human consumption. Complainant purchased 3 litres of oil on payment of requisite price. The samples were drawn from the said packet. One sealed Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.14 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-28799 of 2012 (O&M) -2 - sample was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis. The Public Analyst vide its report dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P-3) opined that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards laid down for soyabean oil under item No. A.17.13 of the PFA Rules 1955. Hence, the sample is adulterated.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sample had been manufactured on 16.10.2004. It was mentioned on the food article that it was best before six months from the date of manufacture. The complaint was filed on 19.4.2005 and by that time, the shelf life of food article had expired. Hence, the valuable right of the petitioner to get the second sample tested has been frustrated.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
A perusal of Annexure P-3, report of the Public Analyst, reveals that the refined vegetable oil in question was packed on 16.10.2004 and its use was best before within six months from the date of packaging. The complaint in question was, admittedly, filed on 19.4.2005. Thus, the shelf life of the food article had already expired by that time.
Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under:-
"On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.14 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-28799 of 2012 (O&M) -3 - particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory."
Thus, in the present case, the valuable right of the petitioner had been frustrated as he could not get the second sample tested from the Central Food Laboratory as by that time the shelf life of the Food article had already expired. On this ground alone, the complaint in question deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint case No. 404 of 2005, dated 19.4.2005 titled G.F.I. Versus B.C.Pathak and others (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 4.9.2012 (Annexure P-1) are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 08, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.14 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh