2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner
with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.05.2001 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara in
2(C) C.C. No.31 of 2001 issuing process / summons against the petitioner, so also the crimin
al prosecution launched against it.
3. As it appears, the petitioner is a manufacturer of coldrinks of different bran
ds and supplied the coldrinks to different dealers. On 15.09.2000 at about 12.30 p.m., the Foo
d Inspector, Office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Puri visited one shop in the name a
nd style SASMAL ENTERPRISERS, located at Konark Bazar, Nimapara and suspecting the beverages t
o be adulterated, he issued notice under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulterati
on Act, 1954 (for short the Act) to the proprietor of the said shop and purchased 6 bottles of
Coke brand, 6 bottles of Fanta brand and 6 bottles of Limca (300 ml. each) brand along with a
receipt of invoice for the purpose of taking of samples to be sent for analysis. Thereafter,
on 16.09.2000, the Food Inspector also issued a letter enclosing a copy of the aforesaid notic
e to the present petitioner informing about the aforesaid lifting of samples which were sold t
o the SASMAL ENTERPRISERS through Invoice No.1070 dated 09.09.2000. The Food Inspector vide se
parate memos sent all the samples to the Deputy Director-cum-Public Analyst to Government of O
disha for analysis and report. On receipt of the samples, the Public Analyst analyzed the same
and vide its Report No.814/2000 and 815/2000 confirmed to the prescribed standard in respect
of the Beverages Coca-Cola brand and Limca brand, but vide its report No.816 dated 19.10.2000
opined that the sample of Fanta is adulterated as its quality falls below the prescribed stand
ard vide result No.3 and added colouring matter-acid coal tar dye orange II present. On receip
t of said reports, the prosecution was launched and intimation was given to the petitioner as
well as its dealer to exercise their right to contest under Section 13(2) of the Act. It appea
rs that aforesaid product of Fanta was to be used Best Before Date which is 6 months from the
date of manufacturer. Since the product was manufactured on 22.08.2000 the said sample of Fant
a was in its best condition for consumption before 21.02.2001. But, in the present case, by th
e time when the prosecution was launched and notice was given to the parties, the aforesaid pe
riod had already expired. However, the petitioner exercised his option for re-analysis of the
samples within the time stipulated to send the samples for re-analysis to the Central Food Lab
oratory, but the Court passed an order on the same subject to payment of certain costs. The pe
titioner thereafter contested the said order of payment of cost, but ultimately deposited the
cost and by the time he deposited the cost for sending the samples for re-analysis, the sample
was not produced for onward transmission and the case was lingering. The petitioner thereafte
r has challenged the said proceeding to be not maintainable in view of the fact that he has be
en deprived of his right under Section 13(2) of the Act for the reasons that the product in qu
estion has long since cross the BEST BEFORE DATE, i.e., its self life since February, 2002 and
nearly 9 years have elapsed since then and even if he has exercised his right under Section 1
3(2) of the Act, but the sample was not being sent for re-analysis.
4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since th
e sample has spent its self life, the petitioner has been deprived of to exercise his valuable
right under Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the continuance of the prosecution hereinafter s
hall be an abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the f
ollowing decisions :-
