Jharkhand High Court
Shree Prasad Jaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2614 of 2012
Shree Prasad Jaiswal ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
------
07/ 04.08.2023 Heard Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 27.07.2011, by
which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner,
in connection with PFA Case No. 01 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No.
2205/11/1852/12, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at
Tenughat.
3. The prosecution case has been lodged on the basis of the
written report of Sri B.K. Sinha, Food Inspector, MADA Chas, Bokaro
against the petitioner. it has been alleged in the prosecution report that on
09.07.2008, Sri B.K. Sinha, Food Inspector, MADA Chas, Bokaro, found
the sample of Chandni Brand, refine Soyabin Oil purchased from the shop
of the petitioner namely Shankar Store as misbranded and adulterated.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner happens to be the owner of M/s Shankar Store and his shop is
situated in the Main Road, but the Food Inspector has got no independent
witness to put as the witness in the offence report as well as in the seizure
list. He submits that the allegations are made that Chandni Refined
Soyabin oil has been purchased from M/s Goyal Enterprises, wholesale
dealer of food grain, Shastri Nagar, Phusro Bazar, Bokaro on 20.06.2008,
which has been seized by the Food Inspector on the ground that the same
was misbranded and on that ground, the case has been registered. He
further submits that the date of packaging of the oil is disclosed as April
2008 and it was further disclosed that the same shall be used before nine
months from the date of packaging. By way of referring Sub-Section (2)
of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he
submits that the valuable right has not been provided to the petitioner, as
the sample of the said oil was not provided to him and due to that he has
not filed proper petition before the learned court for further investigation.
To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai
Shah Versus C.C. Jani & Anr., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 64.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the
learned court has rightly taken the cognizance and there is no illegality in
that cognizance order.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, it appears that the valuable right has not been
provided to the petitioner in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The said section is quoted
hereibelow:-
"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."
7. After considering the aforementioned section, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para-8 of the judgment in the case of Girishbhai
Dahyabhai Shah(Supra) has held as follows:-
"8. 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."
8. In view of the above and considering the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah (Supra), as
sample was not provided to the petitioner to allow to continue the
proceeding against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of the process of
law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order
taking cognizance dated 27.07.2011, by which, cognizance for the
offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with PFA Case
No. 01 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No. 2205/11 /1852/12, pending in
the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, are hereby, quashed.
9. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
