substance. It is the case on behalf of the original complainant that in some other proceedings with respect to samples which were drawn prior to 31/12/2009 when the petitioners approached and requested to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings, the learned Single Judge refused to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings impugned therein, by observing that the aforesaid is in the realm of appreciation of evidence which is required tobe considered at the time of trial and therefore, request on behalf of the original complainant not to entertain the present quashing petitions and not to quash and set aside the impugned criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of res-judicata, constructive resjudicata and/or waiver is concerned, it is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Criminal Misc.Application No.11131 of 2010 has not decided any issue finally, more particularly, the issue whether the petitioners can be held vicariously liable for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the samples which were drawn prior to 31/12/2009 or not. Under the circumstances, there is no question of applicability of resjudicata and/or constructive res-judicata as submitted by Mr.Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant. The principle of res-judicata and/or constructive res-judicata would be applicable only in a case where any particular issue is finally decided and determined by the Court. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Criminal Misc.Application No.11131 of 2010 would not operate as res-judicata and/or constructive resjudicata as contended by Mr.Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant.
