Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21st
August, 2008, passed by the Gujarat High Court in Crl.Misc.Appln.No.15068 of 2007,
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of criminal
complaint No.58 of 1989, filed by the respondent No.1 herein against the appellant in
respect of offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.
There is no dispute that the sample of the curd, in respect of which the
complaint was filed, was collected on 8th April, 1988, or that the report of the Public
Analyst,
whereupon the appellant applied for examination of the second
sample on the basis of Section 13(2), was filed on 4th May, 1988, but was made
available to the appellant only on 17th July, 1989, i.e. 15 months after the samples had
been collected. On 10th November, 1989, the petitioner had prayed for examination of
the second sample. The second sample was ultimately sent to the Central Food
Laboratory on 6th December, 1989, and the report was received on 26th December,
1989.
In the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the appellant had contended that
the report of the Public Analyst having been served on him only on 17th July, 1989, he
was not in a position to apply for examination of the second sample to which he was
entitled in terms of the Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
prior to the said date. It was also his case that since the report had been served on him
only on 17th July, 1989, by which time the sample of curd had deteriorated, any further
examination of such sample had become meaningless, thereby depriving him of the
valuable right conferred on him by Section 13(2) of the above Act.
The appellant herein also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ghisa Ram, reported in 1967 (2) SCR 116,
wherein in similar
circumstances involving the same substance, the complaint was sought to be quashed
on the ground that the sample of curd which had been collected could not have
retained its qualities beyond a period of four to six months under controlled conditions. Despite the above, the High Court in analysing the provisions of Section
482 Cr.P.C. and referring to certain judgments on the point, rejected the appellant's
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the same.
In this appeal, the same point has been taken and urged on behalf of the
appellant by Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal.
Section 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reads
as follows:
“Section 13.Report of Public
analyst.[(1)The public analyst shall deliver, in such
form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local
(Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any
article of food submitted to him for analysis.
(2)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
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.”
It will be apparent from the above, that only on receipt of the report of the Public
Analyst under sub-Section(1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, can a prosecution be launched and a copy of the report could be supplied to the accused.
Sub-Section(2) also indicates that on receipt of the report the accused could, if he so
desired, make an application to the court within a period of 10 days form the date of
the receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food kept by the
Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In other words,
in the instant case, the appellant was prevented from applying for analysis of the
second sample before 17th July, 1989, by which time the second sample of curd had
deteriorated and was not capable of being analysed as was found in the case of Ghisa
Ram (supra) referred to above.
In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the
High Court impugned in this appeal and we also see no reason to continue with the
proceedings which have lasted for 28 years in the absence of any valid and reliable
report with regard to the second sample.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is
set aside and the proceeding, being Crl.Complaint No.58 of 1989, pending before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is quashed.
New Delhi, July 31, 2009. ITEM NO.48 Court No.5 SECTION IIA
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).7555/2008 (From the judgement and order dated 21/08/2008 in CRLMA No. 15068/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)
GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
C.C.JANI & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay and office report ))
Date: 31/07/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dushyant A. Dave,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi,Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,Adv.
Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv.
Mr. Sajeev Dave,Adv.
Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal,Adv.
for M/S. Lawyer'S Knit & Co,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.
Ms. Pinky Behera,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur)
Court Master Court Master [Signed reportable order is placed on the file]