SANJEEV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these applications, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been filed for quashing the order dated 21.10.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia, in Complaint Case Nos.B III -2 of 2000, B III -3 of 2000 and B III -4 of 2000, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioners and also the entire criminal proceedings, arising out of the aforesaid complaint cases. Since in all these applications, similar point has been raised for consideration, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In brief, the case is that the Food Inspector, Patna, Surendra Kumar, who is complainant -opposite party no.2 in all the aforesaid applications, collected the samples of Limca -300 ml. of three bottles, Thums up -300 ml. of three bottles, Limca - 300 ml. of three bottles and Limca -300 ml. of three bottles of Hindustan Coca -Cola Beverages Private Limited, E -1, Industrial Area, Patliputra Colony, Patna -13, from the shop of Kali Pado Karamakar (petitioner no.1 of Criminal Misc. Nos.6257 of 2002, 32948 of 2002 and 6245 of 2002) running in the name of M/s. Karamkar & Sons on 27.7.1999. After collecting the samples, he sent the same for its analyst report. After receiving the analyst report dated 9.9.1999 of the Public Analyst indicating the samples in bottles adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the prosecution report, numbered as Complaint Case No.B III -2 of 2000, for violation of the Act in respect to sample of Thums -Up, the prosecution report, numbered as Complaint Case No.B III -3 of 2000, for violation of the Act in respect to sample of Limca and prosecution report, numbered as Complaint Case No.B III -4 of 2000, for violation of the Act in respect to sample of Limca, were filed under Section 16(1) (A) of the Act. Thereafter, in all the aforesaid three complaint cases, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia, on perusal of the materials available on record, took the cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(A) of the Act against the Chairman, Managing Director, all Administrative Officers, the Area General Manager, Hindustan Coca -Cola Beverages Private Limited, Soumindra Bhattacharya (petitioner no.1 in Criminal Misc. Nos.10951 of 2001, 10952 of 2001 and 10949 of 2001), The Plant H.R. Manager, Hindustan Coca -Cola Beverages Private Limited, A. Subramanium (petitioner no.2 in Criminal Misc. Nos.10951 of 2001, 10952 of 2001 and 10949 of 2001), Director/Vice President, Hindustan Coca -Cola Beverages Private Limited, Sanjeev Gupta (petitioner in Criminal Misc. Nos.12423 of 2001, 12416 of 2001 and 12417 of 2001) and also the proprietor of M/s. Karamkar & Sons, Kali Pado Karamakar and seller, Gaur Chandra Mukherjee (petitioner nos.1 and 2 respectively in Criminal Misc. Nos.6257 of 2002, 32948 of 2002 and 6245 of 2002) vide order dated 21.10.2000. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of cognizance, all the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous applications have been filed before this Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners of all the applications questioned the orders impugned that at the time of filing prosecution report, the complainant -opposite party no.2 violated the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act. It is submitted that even on the date filing of the complaint petitions, no Public analyst Report was communicated to the petitioners, which was mandatory as per Section 13(2) of the Act. It has further been submitted that life of Limca and Thums -up was six months from the date of its manufacturing and even if it is assumed that on the date of analyst report of Limca and Thums -up, the life of the Limca and Thums -up had not expired even then on the date of filing of prosecution report, life of Limca and Thums -up had already expired. Further, it is also argued that analyst report was never supplied to the petitioners and, as such, the petitioners were debarred to raise any objection for test of the samples by Central Food Laboratory. As such, in view of violation of provisions as contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, the order of cognizance as well as the entire prosecution is liable to be quashed. In support of submission, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Sharwan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and another {1997(1) PLJR 453}. It has also been submitted that in a similar matter, a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd of November, 2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.10956 of 2001 and its analogous cases, has quashed the cognizance order, which would appear from Annexure -'4' to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sanjeev Gupta, in Criminal Misc. No.12423 of 2001, 12416 of 2001 and 12417 of 2001.