Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri B.L. Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:3709) on 20 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:3709]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6406/2022
1. Shri B.l. Purohit S/o Lt. Shri Mohan Lal Purohit, Aged
About 59 Years, (Nominee Wholesale Firm) M/s Tirupati
Proteen Pvt. Ltd. T-20, Shaheed Rajaram Block, Mandore,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
2. M/s Tirupati Proteen Pvt. Ltd., T-20, Shaheed Rajaram
Block, Mandore, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
3. Pankaj K. Yagnik S/o Shir Kanti Lal Yagnik, Aged About 53
Years, Factory Manager (Nominee) Manufacturing Firm),
M/s N.k. Proteen Ltd., C/o Infocrom (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Indraprashta Industrial Area, Kota (Rajasthan)
4. M/s N.k. Proteen Ltd., C/o Infocrom (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Indraprashta Industrial Area, Kota (Rajasthan)
(Manufacturing Firm)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Food Inspector, Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parawat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/01/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioners challenging the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur in Criminal Revision
No.22/2022 whereby the learned Revision Court dismissed the
revision petition and affirmed the order dated 30.03.2022 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District in
[2025:RJ-JD:3709] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6406/2022]
Criminal Regular Case No.11/2019 whereby the application filed
by the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act was dismissed seeking discharge of accused from
the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a sample of refined Soyabin
oil (Tirupati Light) was taken by the Food Inspector on 04.04.2011
and the same was sent for testing to Local Public Heath
Laboratory, Jodhpur and after receiving the report, a complaint
was filed against the petitioners on 06.08.2011 under Section
07/16 of the the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned
trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners on 18.08.2011
and summoned the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application
under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act on 19.08.2011 for summoning
the rest of the sample from the Local Health Laboratory, Jodhpur
and to send the same for re-examination to Central Laboratory.
The said application was allowed by the order dated 24.08.2011
and the petitioners were directed to deposit the requisite fee of
Rs. 1,000/- through demand draft and other packing material
within a period of five days. The petitioners deposited the demand
draft on 27.08.2011 and the sample was summoned from the
Local Health Laboratory, Jodhpur. Ultimately the sample was
produced before the Court on 15.12.2012, however, the same was
not sent for testing to the Central Laboratory and was kept lying in
the Court on 04.03.2021. The petitioners were again directed to
produce a demand draft and the packing material for sending the
sample to the Central Laboratory. The petitioners filed an
application on 03.04.2021 under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act with
[2025:RJ-JD:3709] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6406/2022]
the submission that they had already deposited the demand draft
and packing material for sending the sample to Central Laboratory
on 25.08.2011, however, the sample was produced before the
Court with huge delay on 15.12.2012 and after that, the same
was not sent to the Central Laboratory for almost ten years,
therefore, there is no justification to send the sample to Central
Laboratory. At this stage, the application filed by the petitioners
was rejected by the trial Court and the revision preferred against
the same has also been dismissed. Hence, the instant misc.
petition.
3. The sample was taken on 04.04.2011 and a long period of
ten years has already been passed. As per the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the shelf life of the Soyabin oil
is only 12 months and sending the sample for examination to
Central Laboratory after lapse of ten years would serve no
purpose. It is further submitted that there was no fault on the part
of the petitioners in not sending the sample to the Central
Laboratory in time as they had already submitted the demand
draft and the packing material in the year 2011 itself. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the
instant misc. petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Case of Girishbhai
Dahyabhai Shah vs. C.C. Jani and Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 64.
4. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the issue involved in the instant misc. petition is
squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah
[2025:RJ-JD:3709] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6406/2022]
(supra), therefore, the instant misc. petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No.11/2019
(State Vs. Roop Chandar Chordiya) and the order dated
14.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in
Criminla Revision No.22/2022 are quashed and set aside and the
petitioners are discharged from the charge under Section 7/16 of
PFA Act.
5. Stay petition stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
307-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
