Whether prosecution under Prevention of food adulteration Act can be quashed if there is inordinate delay in launching of prosecution?

It is, thus, clear that by causing inordinate delay in launching the
prosecution against the petitioner (vendor), the petitioner was deprived of his
valuable right under section 13 of the Act to get the sample analyzed from the
Central Food Laboratory within the best use period of the article of the food in
question as such a right accrues only after the prosecution is launched. Even if it
is believed for the sake of argument, that a copy of the report of the public
analyst was sent to the petitioner and he was issued notice in terms of section
13(2) in that case also the right of getting the article analyzed by the Central
Food Laboratory was rendered meaningless as analysis of the sample after the
expiry of the period of its best use could not have served the purpose enshrined
in this valuable right of the accused.
Petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of his valuable right under
section 13 of the Act, therefore, deserves to be accepted. In Ghisa Ram’s case
(supra) in an identical fact situation, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“It appears to us that when a valuable right is conferred by
S. 13 (2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him
analyzed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be
expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that
right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because
the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public
Analyst and, is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents.
Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for
his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the
sample kept in his charge analyzed by a greater expert whose
certificate is to be accepted by Court as conclusive evidence. In a 
case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate
conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is
so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his
conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even
though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the facts
contained therein.”
In this case also the action against the petitioner has been vitiated by
inordinate delay in launching the prosecution and thereby depriving him of his
valuable right under section 13 of the Act.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
561-A Cr.P.C No. 49/2011
MP No. 47/2011
 Date of decision: 17.05.2018

Om Parkash Sharma Vs. State &ors.

Coram:
 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, Judge.

Print Page

Whether report of public analyst is binding on accused to whom notice under S 11 of prevention of food adulteration Act is not sent?

The law requires notice under s. 11 to be given only to
the person from whom the sample was taken and none else.  If
that formality had been complied with and the report of  the
analyst  is  placed  on record at the  trial,  it  would  be
admissible against all the accused persons.

Supreme Court of India

Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel & Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra &

 Anr on 8 February, 1965

Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 128, 1965 SCR (2) 894




Bench: Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, 

M., Shah, J.C., Mudholkar, J.R., Sikri, S.M.

Read full judgment here; click here

Print Page