Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1821/2002 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1821 of 2002
With
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1822 of 2002
=========================================================
PEPSI
CO. INDIA HOLDINGS LTD THRO'ITS OFFICER VINAY MATHUR & 1 -
Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SV RAJU for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
RR MARSHALL for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 16/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Present
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure have been preferred by the petitioner herein Pepsi
Co. India Holdings Ltd., and another-org. ccused Nos.10 and 11 to
quash and set aside the impugend complaint being P.F.A. Case No.55 of
2000 pending in the Court of learned JMFC (Municipal), Surat which
has been filed against the petitioner and others for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act (herein after referred to as “the PFA Act”). The main
contention on behalf of the petitioners to quash and set aside the
impugned complaint is that though the samples of Laher Pepsi was
collected on 29.11.1997 the same were sent for analysis on 1.12.1997
and in fact the report of public analysis was received on 8.1.1998
stating that sample is adulterated under Section 2(ia)(e) of the PFA
Act. The sanction was given to file complaint after a period of
approximately three years and even the complaint in question came to
be filed on 18.9.2000 and the sample was sent to the Central
Laboratory on 4.12.2000. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners
that because of delay in granting the sanction and delay in sending
the sample to the CFL while exercising the option under Section 13(2)
of the PFA Act, a serious prejudice has been caused to the
petitioners. Shri Raju, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners
has heavily relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of
this Court dated 22.10.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.10732 of 2010. The aforesaid contentions and the
submissions made by Shri Raju, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioners deserve serious consideration. It is found that in so
many matters because of delay in granting sanction, when the
complaint is filed and thereafter the option is given to the accused
persons to send the sample to the Central Laboratory, in the meantime
the sample has already attained the expiry date and thereafter it is
alleged that prejudice is caused to the accused and therefore, Courts
are required to either quash the complaint or acquit the accused on
the aforesaid ground. It is found and it is to be noted that in many
cases under the PFA Act the Courts are required to acquit the accused
on the aforesaid ground alone. Under the circumstances, the
respondents are directed to explain on affidavit explaining the
reasons for delay in granting sanction to file the complaint as
required under Section 20 of the Act, when in the month of January
1998 the report of public analysis was received in the office of
Surat Municipal Corporation stating that the sample is adulterated.
Shri JK Shah, learned APP is also directed to get necessary
instructions from the Health Department of the State Government as
to what remedial measures can be taken in future so that those who
are real culprits are not let off. Stand over to 26.11.2010. Registry
is directed to give the copy of this order to the learned advocate
for the respondents.
(M.R.SHAH,J.)
kaushik
Top