When magistrate should not issue process in case of allegation of adulteration of Vanaspati?

The samples of Vanaspati packed in tin
container were obtained from the respondent by the
Food Inspector on 14th November, 2008. The packed
tin container showed that Vanaspati was manufactured
in November, 2008 and its shelf life was till the
expiry of six months from the date of packing i.e.
upto May, 2009. The complaint was filed on 10th
November, 2009. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge
came to the conclusion that the valuable right of
the respondent to send another sample for analysis,
as provided under Section 13(2) of the Act, has lost
because of the delay in filing the complaint. He,
therefore, set aside the order of issue process
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C.

6] Considering the ratio laid down in the
above decisions of the Supreme Court and similar
finding of learned Sessions Judge, since the
valuable right of the present petitioner as per the
provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, has lost, in
my view, no fault can be found in the impugned order
passed by learned Sessions Judge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.65 OF 2012

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mithlal Ratanchand Kankriya 

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
Citation: 2015(2)crimes88 Bom

2] Learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal
Revision Application, has set aside the order passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. directing to
issue process against the respondents in a criminal
case for the offences punishable under Section 7(i)
read with Section 2(ia)(a) and Section (ia)(m)
punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”).

Aggrieved by that order, the State has filed present
Writ Petition.
3] The samples of Vanaspati packed in tin
container were obtained from the respondent by the
Food Inspector on 14th November, 2008. The packed
tin container showed that Vanaspati was manufactured
in November, 2008 and its shelf life was till the
expiry of six months from the date of packing i.e.
upto May, 2009. The complaint was filed on 10th
November, 2009. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge
came to the conclusion that the valuable right of
the respondent to send another sample for analysis,
as provided under Section 13(2) of the Act, has lost
because of the delay in filing the complaint. He,
therefore, set aside the order of issue process
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate F.C.
4] Learned APP for the applicant – State
submitted that the first sample was sent within
time, which showed that the food article was not

conforming to the prescribed standard, therefore,
merely because the complaint was belated, in absence
of any statutory provision, learned Sessions Judge
should not have allowed the revision application and
set aside the order of issue process.
5] Mr.Bharuka, learned counsel for the
respondents, opposed the petition. He relied upon
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of M/s. Cargill Indian Private Limited Vs.
State of Haryana and anr., 2013(2) FAC 446 and
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ghisa Ram, 1975
Food Adulteration Cases 190.
6] Considering the ratio laid down in the
above decisions of the Supreme Court and similar
finding of learned Sessions Judge, since the
valuable right of the present petitioner as per the
provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, has lost, in
my view, no fault can be found in the impugned order
passed by learned Sessions Judge.

7] Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
[M.T. JOSHI]
JUDGE

Print Page