Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 6.4.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision No. 11/2011, whereby the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Sojat in Criminal Case No. 226/2001, has been affirmed and seeking quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 226/2001 pending against the petitioners for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act').
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act with the allegation that the Food Inspector-S.S. Rajpurohit collected a sample of AGMARK chilly powder Ramdeo Brand from the petitioner Rijhumal on 25.11.2000. Thereafter one of the sample of chilly powder was sent to the Public Analyst, from where the report was received that the sample was adulterated. After making the necessary enquiries regarding the retailer, the dealer and the stockist of the chilly powder as well as the manufacturer, a complaint was Laid against the petitioners in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M, Sojat for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act. As per the batch and date mentioned on the packet of the chilly powder, the expiry period of the chilly powder was mentioned as best before 8 months from date of manufacture. The Public Analyst submitted a report regarding the chilly powder being adulterated on 4.1.2001. Thereafter, a complaint was filed in the Court after giving notice to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Sojat on 25.9.2001. An application under Section 13(2) of the Act was filed on behalf of the accused and accordingly, the learned A.C.J.M., Sojat by order dated 26.11.2002 directed that the second sample of the chilly powder be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ultimately, the sample was transmitted to the C.F.L. on 4.11.2003. The C.F.L. sent a communication to the Court on 30.5.2008 i.e. approximately 7 years after the sample was drawn intimating the Court to forward the memorandum and specimen impression of seal to it for comparison with the seals affixed on the samples. The memorandum and the specimen seal were forwarded to C.F.L. on 30.7.2008. Thereafter, again another set of the said documents was sent to the C.F.L. on 26.8.2011 and ultimately, the C.F.L. upon analysis of the second sample of the chilly powder by its report dated 3.9.2011 communicated that the sample of the chilly powder was adulterated, inasmuch as, the microscopic examination of the chilly powder revealed that rice structure was present in the chilly powder. The petitioners submitted an application in the trial Court under Section 13(2) of the Act claiming that the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act had not been followed and therefore, the accused should be discharged. The application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 22.10.2011 and the revision preferred by the petitioners was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali by her order dated 6.4.2012. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the orders impugned as well as all the proceedings pending against the petitioners in the trial Court.
(3.) Shri Sheetal Kumbhat learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in this case, the chilly powder has been found to be conforming to all the standards Laid down in the Appendix A.05.05.01, which prescribes the standards for chilly powder. He submits that the only discrepancy, which has been found by the C.F.L. is regarding the presence of rice structures and such conclusion is based on a microscopic examination of the sample. Learned counsel submits that no such requirement is mentioned in the appendix that the chilly powder should be found not having rice structure upon microscopic examination. Learned counsel submits that the report disclosing that the sample was not conforming to the standards was given on the basis of a test, which was not even prescribed in the appendix. As such, it could not be used against the accused to prosecute them. He, therefore, submits that all the proceedings against the accused deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel submits that since the sample of the chilly powder passes all the requisite tests and meets with the standards Lald down in the Appendix-A.05.05.01, the prosecution of the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Shri Mahesh & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 427/1991 decided on 6.2.1992 and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dhanraj Jaisrval v. State of M.P. reported in 2006 FAJ 281 . He further places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Council, Kota v. Harak Chand reported in 1989(1) RLR 831 and contends that since there is no column for microscopic examination in the standards prescribed for the chilly powder in the Appendix- A.05.05.01 of the Act, it cannot be held that the chilly powder, sample whereof has been taken in this case, offends the standards prescribed in the Appendix. He, therefore, urges that the proceedings against the petitioners in this case amount to an abuse of process of laws and are liable to be quashed.;