SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner Dinesh Arya for assailing the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint No. 151/2010 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:- The Food Inspector, Nagaur Shri Anil Kumar Sharma collected samples of sweetened carbonated water (Pepsi, Mirinda etc.) from the vendor Apna Agency, Nagaur on 26.5.2005. One bottle of the sweetened carbonated water was forwarded to the Public Analyst from where a report dated 22.6.2005 was received indicating that the quantity of sugar (10 Grams/100 grams) shown on the label of the bottle was incorrect because only 9.10 grams/100 grams of sugar was found in the sample. Astonishingly, the Food Inspector filed the complaint of this mis-branded food article after a huge delay of five years i.e. on 5.2.2010 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur who took cognizance against the Vendor, Dealer and the Manufacturer (the petitioner herein) by order dated 2.4.2010 for the offence under Section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act. On 18.11.2010, the accused petitioner Dinesh Arya filed an application under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur for having the second sample examined through the Central Forensic Laboratory ('CFL'). However, unfortunately, neither the Court below nor the Public Prosecutor, took appropriate steps on the said application which remains undecided till date. This Court, summoned a report from the CJM Nagaur, who has forwarded a letter dated 6.2.2020 indicating that the application was submitted by Dinesh Arya under Section 13(2) of P.F.A. Act on 18.11.2010 but the accused himself appeared in the Court on 25.10.2016. During the intervening period, neither the accused nor his Counsel made any submission regarding the said application and thus, the same remained undecided and that the application would be proceeded with on 28.2.2020.
(3.) Dr. Bhansali, learned Counsel representing the petitioner relied upon the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2756/2014 : Varun Beverages Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan, whereby the proceedings of the complaint filed against Varun Beverages Limited in an identical situation was quashed. He submits that by now the sample of the sweetened carbonated water can be presumed to have been rendered unfit for analysis. Otherwise also, the shelf life of the sample has expired long back and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the second sample to the Public Analyst at this belated stage. He urges that the fundamental/legal right of the accused to lead evidence for controverting the report of the public analyst has been infringed by the delay in lodging of the report and as the application under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act has not been decided till now and thus, the proceedings of the criminal complaint should be quashed.;