The right to re-analysis by the Central Food Laboratory and the significance of the 'Best Before Date' in relation to this right are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

This petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), has been moved for having the proceedings, pending as Criminal Case No.7619/11 before Shri Sanjay Singh, JMFC, Jabalpur, quashed.

2.In that case, cognizance of the offences punishable under section 7(i) and (v), Rule 32(b)(2)(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has been taken upon a complaint filed by Amrish Dubey, Food Inspector, on behalf of respondent-State to the effect that the sample of Crosse and Blackwell (Snack Dressing) Tomato Ketchup (for brevity 'Ketchup') manufactured by respondent No.5 M/s Nestle India Limited and stored for sale by petitioner No.1, the proprietor of M/s Ratan Sales in its shop located at 12, Gujarati Colony, Jabalpur, was found to be adulterated.

3.Amongst the other petitioners, petitioner No.2, being Manager (Sales) and In-charge of the Depot at Mangliya, Indore, is nominated by the Manufacturing Company under sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act whereas petitioner No.3 and 4 are respectively the Chairman and Managing Director and Vice President/Company Secretary of the Company.

4.Following facts are not in dispute -

"One of the samples of Ketchup drawn by Amrish Dubey was forwarded for analysis to Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Bhopal and the corresponding report dated 23-2-2010 indicated that sample does not conform to the standard prescribed despite declaration made on label that Ketchup was 'best before 6 months' from January, 2010, the month of its manufacture".

5.Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously contended that the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court in view of the fact that they have been deprived of their right to get the sample re-analyzed by Central Food Laboratory as contemplated under sub-section (2) section 13 of the Act.For this, attention has been invited to the fact that the notice, under section 13(2) of the Act, was sent to the petitioners only after filing of the complaint before the Court on 29-7-2011 whereas the report of the Public Analyst was received in the month of February, 2010.According to him, this indifferent and lethargic attitude of the authorities concerned in not taking appropriate action to ensure that valuable right conferred by section 13(2) is exercised by the petitioners before the expiry of shelf life of the sample, has not only caused a serious prejudice to them but has also resulted in a failure of justice.To buttress the contention, reference has been made to decisions of the Supreme Court in -

(i) Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.Ghisa Ram, 1967 MPLJ (S.C.) 640 = AIR 1967 SC 970.

(ii) State of Maharashtra vs. Shivkumar, 2011(1) FAC 41 (wherein the view taken by Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shivkumar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010(2) FAC 239 that the prosecution based on the complaint instituted after more than a reasonable period counted from the date of taking of a sample and much after the expiry of the shelf life of the article of food had become worthless due to loss of right under section 13(2) of the Act was affirmed.

6.While opposing the prayer for quashing the prosecution, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that no interference under the inherent powers is called for to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution.

7.It is well settled that forwarding the report of public analyst to the accused is not a ritual but a statutory requirement to be mandatorily observed.Way back in 1967, in Ghisa Ram's case (supra), the Apex Court (speaking through V.Bhargava, J.) had explained significance of the right under section 13(2) in the following terms -

"It appears to us that when a valuable right is conferred by section 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected t