PANKAJ NAQVI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973 has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 979 of 1999, Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Agra v. Dinesh Kumar Dubey and Others , under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 ("the Act"), P.S. Etmadpur, District-Agra, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M, 1st, Agra.
(3.) A complaint under Section 7/16 of the Act was filed by O.P. No. 2 on 1.7.1999, alleging that on 23.4.1999 an inspection was conducted at the Kattha (Catechu) factory of the applicants, where manufacture/sale of Kattha (Catechu) was being carried, a sample Kattha was 1st purchased, divided in three parts, sealed and labelled in the presence of the applicants, out of which one sample was sent for analysis, second and third samples are in the office of the C.M.O, Agra, the analytical report dated 3.6.1999 indicated that the sample was adulterated which raises an offence under Section 7/16 of the Act. The Learned Magistrate acting on the complaint of O.P. No. 2/a public servant, took cognizance of the offence, summoned the applicants for above offence under order dated 1.7.1999. The applicants filed an application dated 20.8.1999 invoking his statutory right under Section 13 (2) of the Act for analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. The application was allowed on 28.8.1999 at the cost of O.P. No. 2. No report under Section 13 (2) of the Act was obtained. The applicants claimed discharge on 7.8.2012, on the ground that in the absence of a report under Section 13 (2) after 13 years is a serious infringement of the valuable right of the accused. The Court below on the same date i.e, on 7.8.2012 rejected the discharge, directed for the second sample to be sent for analysis under Section 13 (2). The C.F.L, report dated 30.10.2012 indicated that the sample of Kattha (Catechu) was not conforming to the provisions of the Act.;