Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1522/2022
1. Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Chotu Singh
Rajpurohit, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Laadpura,
Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
2. Swastik Milk Chilling Centre, Devgarh Road, Thanwala,
District Nagaur Through Partner Rajendra Singh
Rajpurohit S/o Shri Chotu Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About
54 Years, R/o Village Laadpura, Tehsil Degana, District
Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P. P.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
06/04/2022
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 07.04.2015 so also the order dated
24.01.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta
(hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
2. Facts in short are, that a complaint came to be filed against
the petitioners and other co-accused - Amulya Anand et al for
their prosecution under the provisions of Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2006').
3. Above referred co-accused - Amulya Anand preferred a
Criminal Misc. Petition No.545/2020 (Amulya Anand Vs. State)
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A Coordinate
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1522/2022]
Bench of this Court has been pleased to quash the proceedings
holding them to be barred by limitation by a detailed order dated
08.03.2022.
4. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners' case is squarely
covered by the order dated 08.03.2022 and the proceedings
against the petitioners are also liable to be quashed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners have
approached this Court belatedly, and the order of the trial Court
has been assailed after a delay of about two years. Thus, no
indulgence can be granted to the petitioners.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor was, however, unable to
controvert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment rendered
in the case of Amulya Anand (supra).
7. Heard.
8. Adverting to the preliminary objection of delay raised by
learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that since the
proceedings have already been stayed in the case of co-accused -
Amulya Anand in the year 2020 whereafter the petition came to
be allowed on 08.03.2022. The petitioner was thus, justified in not
filing the petition at that stage. The present petition cannot,
therefore, be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
9. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this
Court is of the firm view that the controversy involved in the
present case is covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench of
this Court dated 08.03.2022 rendered in the case of Amulya
Anand (supra) in which the Coordinate Bench has held thus :
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1522/2022]
"It is relevant to mention here that neither in the entire
complaint, the sanction letter dated 30.08.2013 and
the reply of the State Government is a whisper made
regarding extension of time to file the complaint. As
the sample was drawn on 24.10.2011, the complaint
had to be filed within a period of one year as per the
mandate of Section 77 of the Act of 2006. Even the
first presentation of the complaint in the court of CJM
Nagaur,(who did not have jurisdiction) was done on
12.09.2014 by which time also, the limitation for filing
complaint had lapsed. The language of Section 77 of
the Act of 2006 is mandatory and the Court is
prohibited from taking cognizance if the complaint is
filed after expiry of period of one year from the date of
commission of offence. Even if it is assumed that the
date of commission of offence would be counted from
the date of receipt of the report of the Food Analyst
i.e., 03.11.2011, then also, the complaint had to be
filed within a period of one year 03.11.2011 or latest
by one year from the date of report of Referral Food
Laboratory, Ghaziabad which was issued on
10.09.2012. Even if the factual matrix regarding the
date of commission of offence is stretched with
reference to the report of the Referral Food Laboratory,
Ghaziabad dated 10.09.2012, on which date the fact
regarding the food sample being unsafe was affirmed
then also, the complaint had to be filed within one year
of the said report. However admittedly, first
presentation of the complaint was made on 12.09.2014
which was also well beyond the mandatory period of 12
months provided under Section 77 of the Act of 2006.
It is not in dispute that no order for extension of time
for filing complaint was issued by the Commissioner of
Safety. Thus, it is manifest that the complaint under
challenge was filed well beyond the mandatory period
of limitation. Hence, the trial court could not have
taken cognizance as, neither the complaint was in
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1522/2022]
limitation nor did the Commissioner, Food
Safety/competent authority grant any extension for
filing of the complaint under proviso to Section 77 of
the Act of 2006."
10. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The proceedings of
Criminal Case No.145/2015 are declared time barred and the
same are, hereby, quashed.
11. Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
261-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
