MRINAL KANTI DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
LAWS(JHAR)-2014-4-109
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 23,2014

MRINAL KANTI DAS Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Jharkhand And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 8.8.2000 passed in C2 case No. 2839 of 2000 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector collected sample of Ice Cream from M/s Mitra Enterprises, Jamshedpur. The said sample was sent before the Public Analyst for Chemical Analysis. Public Analyst having analyzed the sample submitted its report on 1.10.1999 but the complaint was filed on 25.8.1999. On filing complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner, vide order dated 8.8.2000. That order is under challenge. Upon appearance, the petitioner did file an application before the court with a prayer to direct the prosecutor to supply copy of the report and also the sample. An order was passed directing the prosecutor to furnish the copy of the report and also the sample but that was not done, in spite of repeated order being passed. The court without supplying the sample or the report took cognizance of the offence as aforesaid which, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is quite illegal as statutory requirement has never been fulfilled. Learned counsel by referring to the provision as contained in Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act submits that upon submission of the report, the prosecution was duty bound to supply the copy of the report and also the sample so that the petitioner may get it analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory. Since that has not been done in this case, the prosecution gets vitiated and thereby the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed in this case but no plea has been taken with respect to furnishing of the report of the Analyst or the sample to the petitioner.;


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