Slngte Bench^ v. State of Chattiseaj-h

State of Chattiseaj-h ^° Through Secretary Depa.rtmeat of Food&Civil Supplies D.K.S. Bha^an (Raipur) Chattisgarh Saagharsh Kumar Mishra Food Iiispector Food & DrugAdministcation, < Kaiibadi, Raipur, (Chatdsgarh) Dilip Kumat Saravgi S/o late Shajarft:! Prasad Saravgi, Aged 55 years Owner .A s» v^tsSsWMl»^-^M^:li.lfSUtBUU^WIU—* '*" 7 Saravgi Brothers, Gaytree Bhawan ^ Gudhkhu line Rajnandgaon C.G.

Mohd. Abdulkarim S/o Mohd.^Abdul Rahun, Nominee M/s Kargil India Pvt. Ltd.<^C/o Bikaner 'Agency, Praksh ^ . _. Compiex , Near Vyas pond , Bhanpuri Riuput C.G'. ''" f/'

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING OUASHING OF THE COMPLAINT AND PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DISTRICT RAJNANDGAdN, CHATTISGARH AND ORDER DATED 16.9.2010 6p ISSUINCTPROCESS PASSED BY LEARNED CHIEF JUDIGIAL MAGISTRATE IN CRIMFNAL 2010__AND COMPLAINT CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS IN CASE TITLED 'SANGARSH KUMAR MISHRA.FOOD INSPECTOR VERSUS DILIP KUMAR SARAVG1 AND OTHERS' UNDER SECTION 7_ AND 16 OF THE FQOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954. PREVENTION OF CASE N0. 1065 OF •.*.twffikM yd^FCS*w,.lai^;^ ^'i^HK ia^''wfcrf<i^1'':ril"t *""" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^TBILASPUR SB;- Hon'ble Shri Justice T.P. Sharma Criminal Misc. Petition No.497 of 2012 Petitioners Respondents 1 2 3 versus 1 2 3 4 M/s. Cargill India Private Limited M/s. Cargill India Private Limited Rajeev Ranjan Singh State of Chhattisgarh Sangharsh Kumar Mishra Dilip Kuinar Saravgi Mohd. AbdulKarim Petitio.n Under Section 482 of the Code qfCruninal Procedure Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, petitioners. Mr. Arun Singh, Govt. Advocate for State/respondent No.l. counsel ORDER (Passed on 22.11. 2013} This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 'the Code') has been filed by the Procedure (for short petitioners for quashment of crimiral proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon and ordei- dated 16.9.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1065/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 85 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

is not the manufacturer of Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner the alleged adulterated oil, even otherwise as per description given in the Form-VII by the Pood Inspector , food article was best before six months from the date of packing and the sample was taken at the time ofpacking on 04.01.2010. But the food has been analized by Public arialyst on 30.6.2010 and complaint has been filed on 16.9.201 after lapse ofsix months ofalleged l^'^ ''K'^R^^ '^ 1 '^ ^Sss^y _^ therefore, order takuig cognizance for issuance of packing, process by ta-ial Court is bad and on the basis of aforesaid complaint the court has issued notice.

3. Notice has been served to Food Inspector but he has not made his appearance. Leamed counsel for the petitioners subinits that while 4. considering the same quest'on in Cr.M.P. No.761/10, ITC Limited Vs. State of CG, this Court vide order dated 30.4.12 the Court has taken the same view that after lapse of aforesaid period i.e. best before six months of its packing, analyzing the sample by the Central Authority would be of no use. Right of accused to analyze the sample froin Central Food Laboratory has been seriously prejudiced. The petitioners have made their appearance before fhe 5. Court below on 22.03.12. The petitioners have remedy to file appropriate application before the trial Court under Section 245(2) of the Code. Allowing the aforesaid liberty considering that the petitioners have made their appearance, I do not find any ground for invoking extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code . Consequently, fhe petition is disniissed suinraarily. petitioners file a application before the trial Court under Section 245(2) ofthe code , the Court shall decide fhe same in its own merits without any influence. However, Bmi Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge