[2025:RJ-JD:18381]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2689/2023

1. Mod Singh S/o Shri Jorawar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, B/c Rajput Captain M/s Saffire Restaurant Surajpole Udaipur Raj.

2. Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Moti Lal Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, Food License Holder M/s Saffire Restaurant Surajpole Udaipur Raj.

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Orde r

11/03/2025

1. The petition is for quashing of the entire judicial proceeding of Criminal Case No. 259/2017, pending in the Court of ACJM No. 3, Udaipur for offence under Section 7 r.w. 16 of the Food Adulteration Act.

2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Bhagwan Singh, Food Inspector, conducted inspection of the petitioner’s restaurant on

01.05.2011 and took samples of Vanilla ice cream on the suspicion of substandard quality. The samples were taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Upon chemical analysis by the Office of the Public Analyst, a report dated 11.05.2011 was received with a comment that the sample was found adulterated. Based upon the above, a complaint came to be submitted before the trial Court on 20.06.2011, upon which learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner. On 30.08.2011, the petitioner appeared and an application was moved on his behalf for sending the second sample to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The said application was allowed and directions were issued for sending the second sample to the Central Laboratory, but pursuant thereof, on 01.11.2011, the requisite formalities for sending the same were completed, and the sealed parcel was handed over to the concerned clerk for dispatching it to the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata. Despite 64 dates of hearing before the trial court, neither the report of re-analysis by the Central Food Laboratory was received, nor proceeding reached to a legitimate conclusion.

4. Aggrieved of the above, the petitioner moved a Criminal Misc. Petition No.3428/2017, which came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23-11-2017, with a direction to the learned trial Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously but of no avail.

5. The seized material in this case was Vanilla ice cream, a perishable dairy product and it is presumable that its natural form gets deteriorated after passing of the period. The sample was taken on 01-05-2011 and on 01-11-2011, the formalities were completed for sending sample to the Central Food Laboratory. As a matter of fact, the delay of six months in sending the sample for re-analysis renders the sample susceptible to deterioration, defeating the very purpose of a fair chemical examination. In the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah vs C.C.Jani & Anr. reported in 2009 15 SCC 64, wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court has dealt with an identical situation by holding that in the case of perishable food articles, where there is inordinate delay and possibility of deterioration of the sample, continuation of prosecution is not justified. The Hon’ble the Supreme Court had quashed the entire procedure. Here, in the present case, the petition was filed in the year 2017 and no report was ever received by the CFL. An accused cannot be compelled to face criminal prosecution in a matter where the charges remain unsubstantiated due to non-availability of conclusive evidence. Delay in trial certainly infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of an accused. Every individual is entitled to a speedy trial, and any trial must be conducted in accordance with law, and in a manner which is reasonable, fair, and just.

6. Keeping an individual embroiled in criminal proceedings for around two decades, particularly in