Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner whilst carrying a total of 20 litres of milk in two iron drums on a motorcycle on 10.4.1996, was stopped by the Food Inspector, Sri Ganganagar. The case of SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.

the prosecution is that after observing due formalities, the Food Inspector purchased two samples of milk from the petitioner. The milk samples were sealed in separate bottles and thereafter, one sample was sent to the public analyst for conducting examination thereof. The public analyst upon analysis of the milk sample by his report dated 30.4.1996 concluded that the sample of milk was having 7.90% milk fat whereas milk solids non-fat were 7.95%. Since the percentage of milk solids non-fat was lesser than the prescribed requirement of 8.5%, the sample of milk was opined to be adulterated.

submitted by the accused on 6.4.2009 whereafter the second milk sample was again sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Ultimately, on 15.9.2011 i.e. after a period of 15 years from the sample being drawn, the Central Food Laboratory submitted a report upon examination of the second sample and as per the report, the sample of the milk was found to be adulterated.

Now, the petitioner by way of the instant misc. petition is seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint on the ground of the same being violative of the fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

for examination but for a period of nearly ten years, the C.M.H.O. office turned a deaf ear to the Court's directions and ultimately, on February, 2006 i.e. after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the sample being drawn, the second sample of milk was produced before the Court. Thereafter also, for a period of three years, the matter kept on lingering in the court on the uncertainty as to who was liable to bear the cost of analysis.

Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that the proceedings of the complaint are absolutely in violation of the right to speedy trial as guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that in this case, the office of C.M.H.O., Sri Ganganagar is solely responsible for the delay which has been occasioned in the examination of second sample of milk by the Central Food Laboratory and now any further trial of the accused for a sample of the milk which was taken way-back in the year 1996, is not warranted.

Sri Ganganagar for forwarding the second sample to it so that the examination thereof could be had conducted by the Central Food Laboratory. The office of C.M.H.O. Totally ignored and disregarded the directions issued by the Court and for a period of nearly ten years, the second sample of the milk was not forwarded to the Court. Thereafter also, for another period of two years, there was a delay because of the indecision over the issue as to who had to bear the analysis charges. The accused thereafter deposited the analysis charges. The analysis of the second sample was conducted in this case after nearly 15 years of the collection of the sample and by that time, it can be assumed that the milk sample could not have retained the same quality. Though it is true that the Central Food Laboratory has not opined that the milk sample had deteriorated or was not fit for analysis despite this, it can be assumed that after the lapse of 15 years from the drawal of the sample of milk, the same could not have retained the same quality when the same was drawn. It is purely the prosecution and particularly, the staff at the C.M.H.O. Office, Sri Ganganagar which is responsible for long and unpardonable delay which has been caused in the analysis of second sample. Therefore, permitting any further proceedings in the trial amounts to violation of the fundamental right of the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1094/2012 Ved Prakash. Vs. State of Rajasthan.