SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner Dilip Maheshwari has approached this Court seeking quashing of entire proceedings of the criminal case No.282/2006 pending against him in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the petition are noted hereinbelow: The petitioner is a vendor of food articles. He runs his business in the name and style of M/s. Rameshwar Enterprises. The Food Inspector collected samples of 'Avin' Brand ghee cartons of 1 Ltr. each from the petitioner's shop on 23.06.2003 after paying the requisite cost. One carton of ghee was forwarded in a sealed condition to the Public Analyst on 28.06.2003 from where a report dated 28.07.2003 was received with an opinion that the sample of ghee did not meet the standards as per the Appendix of the P.F.A. Act and was also misbranded. The Food Inspector sought permission to prosecute the petitioner which was granted by the competent authority on 26.06.2006. The complaint came to be filed on 20.07.2006. The trial court recorded pre-charge evidence and framed charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7(1) read with Section 17, 7(ii) read with Section 16 of the P.F.A. Act and Rule 50 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and Section 7(iii) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint on the ground that the notice under Section 13(2) of the PF Act was served upon him after three years of collection of the sample of ghee and by that time, the best before date printed on the carton of ghee, prescribing the outer limit for consumption as being six months from the month of packaging had lapsed and owing to this delay, the petitioner's statutory right of getting the second sample of ghee examined through the FSL has been frustrated.
(3.) Shri Bhansali, learned counsel representing the petitioner, relied upon this Court's decision in the case of Leela Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (4) CJ (Cri.) Raj. and urged that it is an admitted case emerging from record that the complaint was filed after more than 3 years of sample of packaged ghee being collected from the petitioner's business premises. It was clearly printed on the carton of ghee that the same was to be consumed within a period of six months from packing month i.e. April, 2003. Thus Shri Bhansali urged that the entire proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed because the statutory right available to the accused under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act to get the second sample examined from the C.F.L. has been frustrated by the delay in lodging of the complaint by which time, the best before date had expired.;