The Bombay High Court dealt with a criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to quash proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The proceedings arose from allegations of food adulteration in "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry." The applicant contested the timeliness of the complaint and its impact on their statutory rights under Section 13(2) of the Act. The Court held that the accused failed to exercise their statutory rights for sample testing in a timely manner and dismissed the application for quashing the complaint.

1. Background of the Case

• The applicant manufactures "Sweetened Carbonated Beverages, Canada Dry."
• Allegations stemmed from the Food Inspector's observations of suspended fibrous particles in sealed bottles during a July 2001 inspection.

2. Procedural Developments

• Samples collected on 26.07.2001 were analyzed, and a report from the Public Analyst declared them adulterated.
• Prosecution was sanctioned in 2003, and the complaint was filed after the expiry of the product's "Best Before" date.

3. Contentions of the Applicant

• Complaint was filed belatedly, depriving the applicant of the statutory right to re-test samples under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act.
• Relied on precedents emphasizing prompt prosecution to preserve accused parties' rights.

4. Respondent's Arguments

• Asserted that the applicant failed to request sample testing within the prescribed time under Section 13(2) and 13(2-A).
• Highlighted compliance with procedural norms for testing and destruction of seized articles.

5. Court’s Analysis

• Discussed statutory provisions (Sections 13 and 11) related to sample testing and procedural compliance.
• Cited judgments that establish the need for prompt prosecution and the rights of accused parties under the PFA Act.

6. Key Findings

• Applicant did not exercise the statutory option for re-analysis of samples before their destruction.
• Delay in filing the complaint does not inherently nullify the prosecution if statutory rights were not utilized.

7. Final Judgment

• Application to quash proceedings rejected.
• Interim relief granted earlier was vacated.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:

   • Section 7: Prohibition of manufacture, sale, etc., of adulterated food.
   • Section 13: Procedure for testing food samples and rights for re-analysis.
   • Section 17: Offenses by companies.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

   • Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi:

The applicant’s failure to exercise its statutory rights under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act before the destruction of samples disentitles it from claiming that it was deprived of due process. Procedural delays do not invalidate prosecution where the accused had opportunities for redress but failed to utilize them.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Food Safety
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Procedural Compliance, Statutory Rights, Food Safety