Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.M. Deshpande, J.
Hansraj Vallabhdas Mariwala
and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
State of Maharashtra —Respondent
Criminal Application No.1673 of 2002
Decided on 10.7.2014
(ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 13 (2) — Applicability of — Delay solely attributable to prosecution — If delay is caused by accused — HELD — Accused not entitled to raise the ground that their right to get the sample retested by Central Food Laboratory hampered. [Para 19]
(iii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 13 (2) — Applicability of — HELD — In order to avail indefeasible right available Section 13 (2) of the Act — Complainant under obligation to launch prosecution as early as possible — In any case before expiry of shelf life of product. [Para 23]
(iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 7(i), 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(b), 2(ia)(c), 2(ia)(m) read with 16(1)(a)(i), 16(1)(a)(ii) & 17 — Complainant failed to make necessary averments in complaint vis-à-vis the present applicants that they responsible for day-to-day affairs of company — HELD — In absence of any material to show that their exist prima facie nexus — Between applicants and alleged crime — Difficult to hold that the applicants can be prosecuted — Merely because applicants are the Directors. [Para 24]
Result: Application allowed
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
V.M. Deshpande, J.—This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Regular Criminal Case No. 29 of 1993, filed for the charge that the applicants are guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i), 2 (ia) (a), 2 (ia) (b), 2 (ia) (c), 2 (ia) m r/w Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) and 16 (1) (a) (ii) and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad along with the order of issuance of process, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 24.2.1993, which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by judgment and order, dated 9.9.1999 in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 1993.
2. Shri P.D.Patki, at the relevant time was the Food Inspector. He visited the shop of M/s J.P.Surana, which was situated at Gulmandi, Aurangabad and collected sample of “Safola” refined edible oil. Needless to mention, the complaint asserts that at the time of obtaining sample, the Food Inspector followed the required procedure. The sample was sent to the public analyst on 28.2.1992.
The Public Analyst sent his report bearing No. 112, dated 31.3.1992 to the Medical Officer, Municipal Corporation Aurangabad, which in turn was sent to the Food Inspector. According to the report, the sample was not in conformity and was found to have caster seed oil. Thereafter he obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority.
With these basic facts Shri P.D.Patki, Food Inspector filed a complaint on 24.2.1993 against the applicants and others in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 29 of 1993.
3. The applicant nos. 1 to 6 are the Directors of the applicant no.7.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned Senior counsel Shri Sunil Manohar appearing for the applicants submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, since it lacks the assertion of material particulars against the Directors that they are incharge of conduct of business or responsible for day-to-day affairs. He submitted that the averments are vague. Except bald statement that accused are the Directors, there is nothing in the complaint to connect them in day-to-day affairs of the Company or violation in question.
His second limb of argument is that the indefeasible right of the applicants, as envisaged under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”) is denied to them.
According to him, the prosecution itself is filed after an inordinate delay i.e. after more than 12 months from the date of the seizure of sample i.e. on 27.2.1992 and 11 months from the date of public analyst report i.e. on 31.3.1992. Thus, a valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Act is completely denied, as the sample given by the local authority is completely rendered unfit for analysis. He submitted that there is no explanation available in the entire complaint for such an unexplained delay resulting into denial of fair trial to the present applicants.
It is his submission that the shelf life of the product in question i.e. “Safola” edible Kardi oil is nine months and after nine months the sample is rendered unfit for analysis. From the complaint, he pointed out that the sample was drawn on 27.2.1992 from the business premises of M/s J.P.Surana, who is shown as accused no.1 in the complaint and though the report of the public analyst is dated 31.3.1992, the complaint is filed after a period of 12 months from the date of taking of the samples. Therefore, he submitted that continuance of the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law, and hence, the application needs to be allowed. He placed reliance on various reported decisions of the Apex Court and this court in order to buttress his afore said points.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the complaint
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
