Mittal Spices, Mandi Fentan Ganj vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Food Inspector, Jalandhar, obtained sample of Haldi powder from the business premises of the petitioner at Mandi Fentan Ganj, Jalandhar, on 20th March, 1987. On analysis, vide report Annexure P2 of 24th April, 1987, itself the public analyst found that the moisture content in the sample was 29.20% as against the prescribed standard of 13% and the contents of the sample were also in the form of lumps instead of powder and therefore, the sample was adulterated. Complaint Annexure P1 was, therefore, filed against the petitioner in the criminal court of competent jurisdiction on 8th December, 1989.

Vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5441M of 1990 the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the complaint Annexure PI and the proceedings initiated on the basis in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, on the grounds of inordinate delay and continued harassment.

I have heard Shri D.S. Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Gill, A.A.G. Punjab for the State and have carefully gone through the material on record.

The point came to be discussed by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Nebh Raj v. The State (Delhi Administration) and another, 1980(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 191 and by this Court in Jiwna v. The State of Haryana, 1983(3) Recent Criminal Reports 162 : 1983(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 294 , Sewa Ram and others v. The State of Punjab. 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 495 : 1990(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 147 , Nand Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1990(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 150 and A.K. Roy and another v. The State of Punjab, 1990(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 156 wherein on identical facts it was held that the delay of two years in launching the prosecution was fatal. Observations made by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the authority aforesaid read. "We desire to add that there was no justification whatever for launching the prosecution more than two years after the sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst. To launch a prosecution at such a belated, stage may result in causing harassment to the accused in some cases and may also result in genuine offender escaping punishment. We are unable to see why simple cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be launched so late. Tardiness in these matters is inexcusable."

For the reasons given above complaint Annexure PI and the proceedings initiated on its basis before the learned trial court are both quashed.

JUDGMENT accordingly.