Allowed

Shree Prakash Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./2614/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the accused must be provided with the seized sample to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Since this right was denied to the petitioner, the entire criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance were quashed to avoid an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 27.07.2011 are hereby quashed.

Shree Prakash Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 2614 of 2012

¶3

Shree Prasad Jaiswal ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party

¶4

-------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

¶5

¶6

07/ 04.08.2023 Heard Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶7

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 27.07.2011, by which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with PFA Case No. 01 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No. 2205/11/1852/12, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat.

¶8

The prosecution case has been lodged on the basis of the written report of Sri B.K. Sinha, Food Inspector, MADA Chas, Bokaro against the petitioner. it has been alleged in the prosecution report that on 09.07.2008, Sri B.K. Sinha, Food Inspector, MADA Chas, Bokaro, found the sample of Chandni Brand, refine Soyabin Oil purchased from the shop of the petitioner namely Shankar Store as misbranded and adulterated.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the owner of M/s Shankar Store and his shop is situated in the Main Road, but the Food Inspector has got no independent witness to put as the witness in the offence report as well as in the seizure list. He submits that the allegations are made that Chandni Refined Soyabin oil has been purchased from M/s Goyal Enterprises , wholesale dealer of food grain, Shastri Nagar, Phusro Bazar, Bokaro on 20.06.2008, which has been seized by the Food Inspector on the ground that the same was misbranded and on that ground, the case has been registered. He further submits that the date of packaging of the oil is disclosed as April 2008 and it was further disclosed that the same shall be used before nine months from the date of packaging. By way of referring Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, he submits that the valuable right has not been provided to the petitioner, as the sample of the said oil was not provided to him and due to that he has

¶10

-2-

¶11

not filed proper petition before the learned court for further investigation. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah Versus C.C. Jani & Anr ., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 64 .

¶12

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance and there is no illegality in that cognizance order.

¶13

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the valuable right has not been provided to the petitioner in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The said section is quoted hereibelow:-

¶14

“Section 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reads as follows:

¶15

"Section 13. Report of Public analyst.[(1)The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis.

¶16

(2)On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section(1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local(Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory."

¶17

After considering the aforementioned section, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 of the judgment in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah(Supra) has held as follows:-

¶18

“ 8 . It will be apparent from the above, that only on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst under sub-Section(1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, can a prosecution be launched and a copy of the report could be supplied to the accused. Sub-Section(2) also indicates that on receipt of the report the accused could, if he so desired, make an application to the

¶19

-3-

¶20

court within a period of 10 days form the date of the receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.”

¶21

In view of the above and considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah (Supra) , as sample was not provided to the petitioner to allow to continue the proceeding against the petitioner will amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 27.07.2011, by which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with PFA Case No. 01 of 2011 corresponding to T.R. No. 2205/11 /1852/12, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, are hereby, quashed.

¶22

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶23

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

Amitesh/-

Shree Prakash Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Prakash Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand

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

Krishna Kumar Vs Union of India through Its S P C B I E O W

Krishna Kumar Vs Union of India through Its S P C B I E O W

Krishna Kumar Vs Union of India through Its S P C B I E O W

Rohan Sekh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lalan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Kanchan Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.