Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sakhahari Vyankatrao Borlepawar, a vendor and partner of M/s Pravin Agencies, filed four criminal writ petitions challenging a common order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded. The Magistrate had condoned the delay in filing complaints by the Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in respect of samples of Mixed Fruit Jam (Kissan). The samples were collected from the vendor on 19.3.1997 and sent for analysis. The Public Analyst's report was received on 19.4.1997. The samples were then referred for a second opinion to the second Public Analyst on 21.4.1997. The second analyst's report was received on 11.6.1997 in respect of Criminal Writ Petition No.417/2002 and on 20.1.1998 in respect of Criminal Writ Petition No.418/2002. The complaints were filed on 21.7.2000. The petitioner contended that the delay of over three years was not properly explained and that the Magistrate erred in condoning it. The court considered the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prescribes limitation for filing complaints, and the scheme of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, particularly Section 13(2) which gives the accused a right to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. The court held that the time taken for obtaining the second report was a reasonable cause for the delay and that the delay was not attributable to any negligence or inaction on the part of the Food Inspector. The court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the delay. Accordingly, the court dismissed all four petitions, upholding the order of the Magistrate condoning the delay.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Reasonable Cause - Section 468 CrPC, 1973 - Delay in filing complaint under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The Food Inspector collected samples on 19.3.1997, received first analyst report on 19.4.1997, and referred samples to second analyst on 21.4.1997. The second report was received on 11.6.1997 (WP 417/2002) and 20.1.1998 (WP 418/2002). Complaints were filed on 21.7.2000. The Magistrate condoned the delay. The High Court upheld the condonation, holding that the time taken for the second analysis was a reasonable cause and not attributable to negligence or inaction of the Food Inspector. (Paras 1-6) B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Limitation - Filing of Complaint - Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The right of the accused to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) is a valuable right. The delay caused by the process of obtaining such report cannot be held against the prosecution. The court must consider the statutory scheme and the time required for compliance. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in filing complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, caused by the time taken to obtain a second report from the Central Food Laboratory, constitutes a reasonable cause for condonation of delay under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
All four criminal writ petitions are dismissed. The order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, condoning the delay in filing the complaints is upheld.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- reasonable cause
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 13(2)
- Section 468 CrPC
- limitation for filing complaint
- referral to second analyst
