Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State in both the matters and perused the record.
By these two applications, the applicants have sought quashing of proceedings of Complaint Case No.736 of 1996 "Nagar Swastha Adhikari Vs. Toofan Ghosh and another", under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as PFA Act); pending before the court of A.C.J.M., Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicants contend that the applicant Toofan Ghosh is holding post of Deputy Manager of Hotel Novotal (now known as Hotel Trident) and has taken over charge of the post of Deputy Manager of the hotel after transfer of former Deputy Manager Mohit Nirula, the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.1390 of 2016, who after transfer on 12.4.1995 has joined at Ahmadabad; that the license for food and beverages was issued in the name of applicant Mohit Nirula, Deputy Manager of hotel Novotel for the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994, from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995 and thereafter from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1996; that according to the prosecution on 13.6.1995, a sample of curd was collected from the hotel Novotel of applicants by Surendra Singh, the then Food Inspector of Nagar Nigam, Agra; that as per report of Analyst dated 11.7.1995 the sample of curd was not found to the standards prescribed; that on the basis of above report of Public Analyst, U.P., Lucknow, a complaint case was filed by Nagar Swastha Adhikari, Nagar Maha Palika, Agra against the applicants and hotel under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; that on 7.8.1996 the applicants moved an application U/s 13 (2) of PFA Act to the Court for getting the sample of curd re-tested and analysed by the Central Food Laboratory; that on 15.10.1996 the Magistrate directed to send the sample for re-testing at Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and on 17.12.1996 observing that sample has returned from Calcutta directed to send it for re-testing at Central Food Laboratory, Pune; that the copy of order-sheet filed at Annexure-7 shows that the sample was actually sent for re-testing on 2.12.2014 and report of Central food Laboratory dated 1.1.2015 was received after one month of sending the sample on 2.12.2014; that the above facts show that the sample of curd taken in the year 1995 was sent for re-testing after inordinate delay and the report dated 1.1.2015 of Central Food Laboratory, Mysore after a period of about more than 18 years has no evidenciary value.
It was also contended on behalf of applicants that Toofan Ghosh has moved an application for discharge on 13.3.2001 which has not yet been decided by the Magistrate concerned. Placing reliance on the case law in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 and Girish Bhai Daya Bhai Shah Vs. C.C. Jani, 2009 (15) SCC 62, learned counsel contend that sample of curd collected in the year 1995 could not have retained its quality beyond a period of four to six months under controlled conditions and so the report of Central food Laboratory, Mysore instead of Central Food Laboratory, Pune has no evidenciary value and in the circumstances the proceedings of complaint case are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that the report of Analyst regarding the sample of curd having been found not according to prescribed standard has been obtained within time and the correctness as well as value of the report of Central Food Laboratory can only be considered by the trial court in accordance with law; that the applicants themselves are liable for delaying the proceedings of complaint case and getting the sample misplaced; that the report of Central Food Laboratory, Mysore clearly shows that the contents were not found up to the standard prescribed; that the applicants are aggrieved with non-disposal of their application for discharge which of course requires disposal in accordance with law. He further contended that the offence of adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is an offence of grievous nature which involves the health of public at large.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that the effect of alleged transfer of applicant Mohit Nirula in whose name the license was existing on the date of taking of sample and taking over the charge by applicant Toofan Ghosh are matters of fact which may be considered only by the trial court. Similarly the delay, if any, caused in obtaining the re-testing report from Central Food Laboratory and the reasons and circumstances under which it was caused, can also be considered by the trial court. The above issues of involving facts may be considered by the trial court at the time of disposal of discharge application on the grounds taken by the applicants.
Undisputedly, the offence of food adulteration is an offence of grievous nature which involves health of public at large. Since the matter relating to food adulteration may not be considered to be less grievous in nature. I find that making reference of the judgment in the matter though involving economic offence in a case Section 482 Cr.P.C. "State Vs. R. Vasanthi Stanley and another", AIR 2015 SC 3691, will not be unnecessary in which the Apex Court has stated that "A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or, the principle that when the matter has been settled, it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system. That can never be an acceptable principle or parameter, for that would amount to destroying the stem cells of law and order in many a realm and further strengthen the marrows of the unscrupulous litigations. Such a situation should never be conceived of."
I find that the discharge application moved by applicant Toofan Ghosh is required to be decided by trial court by the reasonable order and there can be no reason for keeping it undisposed and all the issues factual or legal raised by applicants may be considered by the trial Court. The remedy of seeking discharge under the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C. is available to the applicants on all the factual and legal grounds raised by them and there is no sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings of complaint case.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or sufficient ground for exercise of inherent powers by this Court in order to secure the ends of justice. The application is devoid of merits and the prayer made may not be allowed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the discharge application moved by applicant Toofan Ghosh by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, if possible, within three moths.
It is made clear that this Court has not given any observation on the merits and the observation, if any, made in the body of judgment shall not prejudice any of the parties at the time of disposal of discharge on pending application. The applicant Mohit Nirula if advised may also move application for discharge, if has not moved earlier, and applicant Toofan Ghosh will also be at liberty to move supplementary application for discharge in view of change of circumstances since moving of earlier application.
The applications are disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 8.4.2016 Kpy