Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal miscellaneous applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the applicants (Rohit Mull and Cadbury India Limited) seeking quashing of prosecutions initiated against them under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The applicants were accused in two separate criminal cases before different Judicial Magistrate First Class courts in Goa. The background involves food inspectors purchasing chocolate samples from retail outlets, which were found by the Public Analyst to contain living larva and webs, rendering them adulterated and unfit for human consumption. The complaints were filed, and notices under Section 13(2) of the Act were sent to the applicants, informing them of their right to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. However, the applicants alleged that the samples were not properly preserved or were unavailable, thereby frustrating their right to a second opinion. The legal issue centered on whether the prosecutions should continue despite the alleged denial of this statutory right. The applicants argued that the right under Section 13(2) is a valuable right that overrides the public analyst's report, and its frustration by the food inspectors' conduct renders the prosecution an abuse of process. The respondent State contended that the samples were available and the right was not denied. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 13(2) and the importance of the accused's right to have the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory, whose report is conclusive and supersedes the public analyst's report. The court found that in both cases, the food inspectors failed to preserve the samples properly or made them unavailable, thereby frustrating the applicants' right. The court held that continuation of the prosecutions would be an abuse of the court's process and quashed the proceedings in both criminal cases. The decision favored the accused/applicants, emphasizing that the right under Section 13(2) is sacrosanct and its denial cannot be overlooked.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - Prosecution launched under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Petitioners' right to second report from Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) frustrated by Food Inspectors' failure to preserve samples - Held that continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process of court and proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 1-10). B) Food Adulteration - Right to Second Report - Section 13(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Valuable right of accused to get sample analysed by Central Food Laboratory - If that right is frustrated by prosecution, the accused cannot be compelled to face trial - Held that the right under Section 13(2) overrides the report of public analyst and its denial vitiates the prosecution (Paras 3-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecutions launched by Food Inspectors against the petitioners should be allowed to continue when the petitioners' right to have a second report from the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been frustrated by the Food Inspectors.
Final Decision
The court allowed both criminal miscellaneous applications and quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No.726/2004/A before the JMFC Panaji and Criminal Case No.1422/S/2004/B before the JMFC Mapusa.
Law Points
- Right to second report under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 is a valuable right
- Frustration of that right by prosecution's conduct warrants quashing of proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to prevent abuse of process
