S.P. Pathak, J. - (1.) BY this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought to quash the criminal proceedings now pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 111/2005 on transfer from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 68/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short referred as, 'the Act').
(2.) THE necessary facts for the disposal of the present misc. petition are that on 18.04.1989 at about 8.15 a.m. in the morning, the Inspector of the Food Department on seeing a milk vendor while taking milk to supply to its customers in drums purchased 750 ml of milk after making payment to him. From the milk purchased, it was divided into three parts and were kept in small bottles, thereafter the same were sealed. After conducting necessary formalities at the spot, one of the sample was sent for its examination to the Local Health Authority, Alwar who in turn sent its report on 29.04.1989 and found the sample adulterated. It appears that a complaint against the accused -petitioner for committing offence under Section 7/16 of the Act was filed before the trial Court on 10.01.1991 and summons to the petitioner were issued. After service of summons for the first time the petitioner appeared before the Court on 29.08.2001. The petitioner moved an application for sending one of the samples to the Central Food Laboratory in the year 2003. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court observing that the Court was satisfied with the report of the Local Health Authority. It appears that the petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order rejecting the application filed the present misc. petition in the year 2001 and on 23.03.2007 the Court after admitting the petition stayed further proceedings pending before the trial Court. It has been contended by the learned Counsel that in the instant case what is not in dispute and cannot be disputed is that the incident took place on 18.04.1989, the Food Inspector filed complaint on 10.01.1991 i.e. After 21 months and third sample regarding which the petitioner had a right to get examined from the Central Food Laboratory has been taken away for the reason that it was lost. It is also contended that after service of summons, the petitioner appeared in the Court on 18.07.2001. Thus, it would appear that after 12 years of incident even if there was any sample with the Court, that was of no use for its examination. It is also contended that a valuable right has been given to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act which is mandatory in nature. It is contended that now almost 18 years have elapsed and the case is pending trial at the stage of pre -charge evidence, therefore, in view of several decisions of the Apex Court, if there appears inordinate delay in completing the trial, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned public prosecutor for the State while opposing the submissions made before me has submitted that proper efforts were made to traceout the whereabouts of the petitioner and ultimately he appeared in the Court after service on 18.07.2001, therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution. It is also submitted that in 21 months time the complaint was filed and since the sample was found adulterated, therefore, the accused petitioner has no right to claim relief to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him.;