Supreme Court of India
GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAHversusC.C. JAIN & ANR
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 979
- Decided
- 31 July 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution could not continue where the accused was denied the statutory right to have the second sample analyzed, and therefore the proceedings were quashed.
Summary
Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah was prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for allegedly selling adulterated curd. The sample was taken on 8 April 1988 and the Public Analyst’s report indicating adulteration was filed on 4 May 1988 but was only served to the accused on 17 July 1989, a delay of 15 months. Because the report was served late, Shah could not apply within the statutory ten‑day period for a second‑sample analysis under Section 13(2) of the Act; the second sample had deteriorated and could not be tested. The Gujarat High Court rejected Shah’s petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the delay denied Shah his statutory right to a second‑sample analysis, rendering the evidence unreliable, and therefore the criminal complaint could not continue. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, and the pending criminal complaint was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 15‑month delay in serving the Public Analyst’s report deprived the accused of his statutory right to obtain a second‑sample analysis under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
- Whether, in the absence of a valid and reliable second‑sample report, the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 13(1), s. 13(2), s. 16(1)(a)(i)
Subjects
Food adulterationSecond sample analysisSection 13(2) PFA ActDelay in service of reportSection 482 CrPCQuashing of criminal proceedingsSample deterioration
Judgment
,'
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 229
GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH A
v.
C.C. JAIN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2009)
JULY 31, 2009
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
PREVENT/ON OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954:
s. 13(2) - Right of accused to get second sample of food c
item analysed by Central Food Laboratory -prosecution of
accused for commission of offence u/s 16(a)(i) as sample of
curd was found to be adulterated - Report of Public Analyst
supplied to accused after 15 months of collection of samples
- High Court in a petition filed by accused u/s 482 CrPC 0
declining to quash the proceedings against the accused -
HELO: Accused was prevented for 15 months from applying
for analysis of second sample, by which time. the second
sample of curd deteriorated and was not capable of being
analysed - There is no reason to continue with the E
proceedings, which have lasted for 28 years, in absence of
any valid and reliable report with regard to the second sample
- Order of High Court set aside - Criminal proceedings
pending against accused quashed - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.482.
F
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram 1967 (2)
SCR 116, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1967 (2) SCR 116 referred to Para 5 G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1401 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2008 of the High H
229
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.
A Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 15068 of 2007.
t. ...
Dushyant A. Dave, Huzefa Ahmedi, S. Udaya Kumar
Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Sanjeev Dave, Shwetank Sailakwal (for
M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Appellant·
8
Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
c
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 21st AugU1st, 2008, passed by the Gujarat High
D Court in Crl.Misc.Appln.No.15068 of 2007, filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of criminal
complaint No.58 of 1989, filed by the respondent No.1 herein
against the appellant in respect of offences punishable under
Sections 16(1 )(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
E 1954.
3. There is no dispute that the sample of the curd, in
respect of which the complaint was filed, was collected on 8th
April, 1988, or that the report of the Public Analyst, whereupon
the appellant applied for examination of the second sample on
F the basis of Section 13(2), was filed on 4th May, 1988, but was
made available to the appellant only on 17th July, 1989, i.e. 15
months after the samples had been collected. On 10th
November, 1989, the petitioner had prayed for examination of
the second sample. The second sample was ultimately sent to
G the Central Food Laboratory on 6th December, 1989, and the
report was received on 26th December, 1989. +-
4. In the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the appellant
had contended that the report of the Public Analyst having been
H served on him only on 17th July, 1989, he was not in a position
GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH v. C.C. JAIN & ANR. 231
to apply for examination of the second sample to which he was A
entitled in terms of the Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954, prior to the said date. It was also his
case that since the report had been served on him only on 17th
July, 1989, by which time the sample of curd had deteriorated,
any further examination of such sample had become B ,
meaningless, thereby depriving him of the valuable right
conferred on him by Section 13(2) of the above Act.
5. The appellant herein also relied on a decision of this
.,. Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ghisa
Ram, reported in 1967 (2) SCR 116, wherein in similar C
circumstances involving the same substance, the complaint
was sought to be quashed on the ground that the sample of
curd which had been collected could not have retained its
qualities beyond a period of four to six months under controlled
conditions. Despite the above, the High Court in analysing the D
.A provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and referring to certain
.. judgments on the point, rejected the appellant's petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the same.
6. In this appeal, the same point has been taken and urged E
on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel
appearing in support of the appeal.
, 7. Section 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954, reads as follows:
F
"Section 13.Report of Public analyst.[(1 )The public
analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed,
I a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the
-L analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis.
(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the G
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 H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S. C.R.
r--
A 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, informi.ng such person or persons that if it
is so desired, either or both of them may make an
B 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."
·~
8. It will be apparent from the above, that only on receipt
c 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
D to the 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 A
food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the .
Central Food Laboratory. In other words, in the instant case,
the appellant was prevented from applying for analysis of the
E second sample before 17th July, 1989, by which time the
second sample of curd had deteriorated and was not capable
of being analysed as was found in the case of Ghisa Ram
(s' 1pra) referred to above.
9. In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the
F
judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal and we also
see no reason to continue with the proceedings which have
G
lasted for 28 years in the absence of any valid and reliable
report with regard to the second sample.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed
-
by the High Court is set aside and the proceeding, being Crl. ~-
Complaint No.58 of 198S1, pending before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is quashed.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Food adulteration"Sign in to search