- (1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Cr. Regular Case No.76/2009 (Old) and 89/2013 (New) "State v. Santosh Shah & Ors." qua the petitioners pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr.Div.) No.5, Metropolitan, Jodhpur for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the vendors of the chilly powder and the sample whereof was collected by respondent No.2, Food Inspector from Vishal Mega Mart, Jodhpur on 15.10.2007. At the time of collecting the sample, the Food Inspector prepared Form No.6, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the manufacturing date of the chilly powder was June 2007 and the 'best before date' was mentioned as May 2008. Learned counsel submits that the complaint arraying the petitioners as accused was filed by the Food Inspector in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan, Jodhpur on 25.3.2009 i.e. much after the packaged the chilly powder had expired. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Leela Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2012 CrLR 1180 and Nemi Chand Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan,2012 CrLR 830, has contended that the prosecution having been initiated after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample, the mandatory right available to the accused for challenging the report of the public analyst as per Section 13(2) of the Act was violated. They thus pray that the proceedings of the complaint so far as the petitioners are concerned, is liable to be quashed.
(3.) It is also contended that proceedings against the manufacturers in Cr.Regular Case No.76/2009 State v. Santosh Shah & Ors. have already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2013 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.616/2013 qua the petitioners therein and the case of the present petitioners, being vendors, is on better footing than the case of the manufacturers;