Allowed

Prakash Bondre and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2019APPLN/3405/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench of the High Court in Criminal Appeals allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC quashing criminal proceedings. It held that inordinate delay frustrated the accused's statutory right to appeal to the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; order issuing process dated 25.08.2000 quashed; complaint Criminal Case No.24 of 2000 quashed.

Prakash Bondre and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

205-appln.3405.2002.doc

¶2

1/5

¶3

nsc.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3405 OF 2002

¶6

Prakash Bondre 16, Swarna Society, Near Gurukul, Panchpakhadi, Thane (W) 400 602.

¶7

Cadbury India Limited, a Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its Registered Office at Cadbury House, 19, Bhulabhai Desai Road, ...Applicants Mumbai 400 026. (Original Accused Nos.1 & 2)

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra at the instance of Shri S.V Botre, Food Inspector, C/o. The Joint Commissioner (Konkan Division) Food and Drug Administration (M.S.) E S I S Hospital, 4^th Floor, ...Respondent Wagle Estate, Thane. (Original Complainant)

¶10

Ms.Kirti Parikh a/w Mr.Manik Joshi i/b Mr. Prem J. Ranga, for the Applicants.

¶11

Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.

¶12

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 4^th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶13

205-appln.3405.2002.doc

¶14

2/5

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

By this application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are seeking quashing and setting aside of the order issuing process dated 25^th August, 2000, as against the applicants, as well as the the complaint filed by the Respondent.

¶17

A few facts as are relevant are as under:-

¶18

On 16^th January, 1997, Food Inspector Mr. S. V. Botre visited

¶19

the factory of Cadbury India Limited (Applicant No.2) and drew sample of 750 gms of Soya Flour from stitched packed plastic bag kept in the premises of Cadbury India Limited (Applicant No.2). After completing the necessary formalities, the respondent sent the sample to the Public Analyst for analyzing the said sample, on 17^th January, 1997. The respondent received the Public Analyst Report dated 14^th February, 1997, on 24^th February, 1997. On 31^st January, 2000, the respondent filed a complaint as against the applicants in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7(i), Section 2(ia) (a), Section 2 (ia) (h) and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The said case was numbered as Criminal Case No.24 of 2000.

¶20

205-appln.3405.2002.doc

¶21

3/5

¶22

The aforesaid facts are undisputed. It is pertinent to note that after a lapse of 3 years, the aforesaid complaint was filed by the Respondent.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the complaint was filed belatedly after more than 3 years and as such the applicants valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was frustrated because of the said delay in lodging the complaint, inasmuch as, by the said time the sample was of more than 3 years. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgments in the cases of M. Ismail and Others v/s The State of Maharashtra¹ , Shivkumar alias Shiwalamal Narumal Chugwani, Proprietor of Kanhaiya General Stores v/s State of Maharashtra² ; State of Maharashtra v/s Shivkumar @Shiwalamal N. Chugwani³ , Himanshu son of Hemant Acharya and Others v/s The State of Maharashtra⁴ , R. Narayan Swamy and Another v/s The State of Maharashra and Another⁵ , Marico Limited and Ors v/s State of Maharashtra and Anr.⁶ , Ashutosh Bhailal Rao and Ors v/s The State of

¶24

12007(2) FAC 445

¶25

2 MANU/MH/0588/2010

¶26

3 Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.6332/2010 decided on 13.09.2010.

¶27

4 Cr.Appln.559 of 2011 decided on 19.12.2011

¶28

5 Cr.Appln.173 of 2012 decided on 15.02.2013

¶29

6 2016 SCC Online Bom 12606

¶30

205-appln.3405.2002.doc

¶31

4/5

¶32

Maharashtra⁷ , in support of his submission.

¶33

Learned APP does not dispute the fact, that the complaint was filed after 3 years. She also does not dispute the proposition laid down in the aforesaid Judgments and that the applicants right under Section 13(2) of the said Act, was frustrated because of the said delay in lodging the complaint.

¶34

As noted above, the Food Inspector had visited the factory of the Applicant No.2 on 16^th January, 1997 and had drawn samples of 750 gms of Soya Flour. On 17^th January, 1997, the respondent sent the said sample to the Public Analyst; on 24^th February, 1997, the respondent received the report of the Public Analyst dated 14^th February, 1997 and on 31^st January, 2000, the respondent filed a complaint as against the applicants in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Thane. On 7^th February, 2000, the Health Officer, Thane Mahanagarpalika served a copy of the Public Analyst Report on the applicants. The product was Soya Flour, a perishable item. Admittedly, the complaint was filed almost after 3 years. The copy of the Public Analyst Report was also served on the applicants on 7^th February, 2000, by which time, the product had become a 7 Cri.Appln. No.2019 of 2006 decided on 11.12.2017.

¶35

205-appln.3405.2002.doc

¶36

5/5

¶37

perishable item. The delay in filing the complaint resulted in annulling the applicants right to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory as provided under Section 13(2) of the said Act.

¶38

Having perused the Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is evident that even in the present case, the right accorded to the applicants under Section 13(2) of the said Act, was frustrated because of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, resulting in vitiating the applicants right guaranteed to them under Section 13(2) of the said Act.

¶39

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order of issue process dated 25^th August, 2000, is quashed and set aside and consequently the complaint filed by the Respondent as against the applicants being Criminal Case No.24 of 2000, is also quashed and set aside.

¶40

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶41

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶42

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Prakash Bondre and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Bondre and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Pralhad Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Narayan Tambe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharma @ Mari Bomma Gowda Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasant Janardhan Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vasant Janardhan Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Percy Homi Italia and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.