J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Since the challenge in both the captioned applications is to a self-same complaint, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

1. The applicants (original accused) have filed these applications under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") invoking inherent powers of this Court praying that the complaint being Food Adulteration Case No. 55 of 2000 pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Surat, be quashed. It appears from the materials on record that one A.S. Licencewala, a Food Inspector serving with the Surat Municipal Corporation lodged a private complaint in the Court of the J.M.F.C. (Municipal), Surat against 12 accused of the offence punishable under Sees. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. The accused No. 1 in the complaint is the Wholesaler carrying-on business in the name of the Kamal Enterprise and the accused No. 2 is the Sales Manager of the accused No. 1. The accused No. 3 is a Cold Storage firm and the accused Nos. 4 to 9 are the partners of the accused Nos. 1 and 3 firms. The accused No. 10 is a company who manufactures the product of aerated water like Pepsi, 7UP, Miranda, Slice etc. The accused No. 11 is the nominee of the accused No. 10-Company.

3. It appears that on 29th November, 1997 the complainant visited the firm of the accused No. 1 and at that point of time, the accused No. 2 was present and was selling the products manufactured by the accused No. 10 like Pepsi, 7UP, Miranda etc. The complainant wanted to draw a sample for the purpose of analysis, and therefore, he called one person, namely, Rajubhai C. Thakkar as a panch witness. The complainant collected six bottles of 500 ml. of printed crown of Laher Pepsi and the same were sealed and packed, and thereafter, were sent for analysis. The complainant received the report from the Public Analyst dated 8-1-1998 certifying that the product was found to be adulterated. The Public Analyst certified that the aerated water had excessive impurity in the form of Floated Faculent Gelatin.

4. It appears that on receipt of the Public Analyst report the complainant applied for sanction under Sec. 20 of the Act for the purpose of filing complaint against the accused persons. The Surat Municipal Corporation accorded sanction dated 15th June, 2000 as prayed for by the complainant, and thereafter, on 18th September, 2000 the complaint was lodged in the Court of the J.M.F.C. (Municipal), Surat.

5. The learned J.M.F.C. vide order dated 18th September, 2000 took cognizance upon the complaint and ordered issue of bailable warrant of Rs. 3,000/- against each of the accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 16 read with Sec. 7 of the Act, 1954.

6. The Misc. Criminal Application No. 1821 of 2002 is filed by the original accused Nos. 10 and 11 i.e. Pepsi Cola India Holdings Ltd., the manufacturer of the aerated water and its nominee. Whereas the Misc. Criminal Application No. 1822 of 2002 is filed by original accused Nos. 1 to 9 i.e. the Wholesaler, Sales Manager, Cold Storage as a partnership firm and the partners of the partnership firm.

7. It also appears from the materials on record that the applicants of Misc. Criminal Application No. 1822 of 2002 had filed an application for discharge/dropping of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate vide application Exh. 67, however, the said application was ordered to be rejected vide order dated 21st April, 2001. Against the said order the accused Nos. 1 to 9 had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 56 of 2001 and the said revision application was also ordered to be rejected vide order dated 28th January, 2002.

8. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:

8.1. Mr. Bhadrish Raju, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants vehemently submitted that there has been a gross delay in filing the complaint as the samples were drawn on 29th January, 1997 and