HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-68
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 12,2015

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Rajasthan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.N.Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this criminal misc. petition, a prayer is made for dropping of the proceedings in pursuance to the complaint case bearing No. 2776/2000.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner company submits that a sample of Ice -cream was taken on 05th April, 1999 followed by report on 19th April, 1999. The complaint thereupon was filed on 23rd November, 2000, i.e., with the delay of more than one and a half years. An application for sending another sample (second sample) for analysis was made by the co -accused in the year 2001 followed by a report. The sample was found to be deteriorated. The Public Prosecutor then made a further application to call for the third sample for sending it for another report. The application for it was made in the year 2004 could not get result till November, 2007, as is coming out from Annexure -10. It is stated that when the sample of Ice -cream was taken on 05th April, 1999 followed by report on 19th April, 1999, delay in filing complaint by more than one and a half years had taken away the valuable rights of the petitioner company under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "Act of 1954"). The fact aforesaid is established with the second report. Therein, sample was sent on the application moved by the co -accused with the report. The sample was found deteriorated, thus analysis could not be made. Now the complainants themselves made a request to call for third sample examined and was not given in the Court till the year 2007. No purpose remains for continuing the prosecution because valuable rights of accused under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 stand frustrated. The first sample may have adverse report of adulteration due to product not being as per specific standard but rights of the accused under Sections 13(2) of the Act of 1954 cannot be frustrated. It is due to delay in filing complaint and now the delay in sending third sample for examination after loss of shelf life.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has given reference of judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of S.P. Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 1553 & 1554 of 1985.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.