1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2136 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .... Petitioner Vs. Mr. Vijay N. Agarwal & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 5th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is filed by the State to challenge the correctness and legality of the order dated 17th March 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Dist. Ratnagiri allowing Criminal Revision Application No.16 of 2009 and quashing Regular Criminal Case No. 109 of 2008. The proceedings quashed were for the offence 7(i) r/w. 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Sessions Court noted that the food item in question was packed in October 2007 and was good for use upto nine months from the date of packing i.e. upto July 2008. The sample had been taken by the prosecution on 1st November 2007 and was sent for analysis to 2 Central Food Laboratory. The report of the Laboratory dated 20th November 2007 was received on 11th December 2007. However, thereafter complaint came to be filed only on 15th September 2008. In view of these facts, the revisionary court held that the respondents had lost their right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample examined from Central Food Laboratory and therefore quashed the proceedings. It s observations of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order ’ read as follows: 8. “ I have considered said submissions made at bar by advocate Shri Parekh and A.P..P. Shri Parkar. Certainly the report of public analyst filed along with complaint shows that the sample was packed in October 2007 and it could have been used within nine months from the packing. Un­ disputedly the sample could have been used upto July 2008 for its best results. Impliedly it goes to show that after nine months, it could not have been used for any purpose. The record also shows that the complaint came to be filed on 15/9/2008 i.e. after near about 1 to 1 and month ½ from July 2008. After filing complaint within 10 days, the accused could have exercised valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act to get the sample exercised from Central Food Laboratory. 9. In the light of aforesaid facts certainly the criminal case against the petitioners/accused ought to have been filed by the complainant i.e. concerned Food Inspector before July 2008, so that the petitioners could have exercised right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and they could have got examined sample from Central Food Laboratory. But apparently it is clear that after expiry of date of sample, the case was filed after near about 1 to1 and month. Naturally after the expiry date, the sample ½ 3 must have become unfit for examining the same under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, since the date expired in July 2008. Therefore because of these facts naturally the petitioners could not exercise their valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get examined the sample from Central food Laboratory and to prove themselves innocent. ” Since the statutory right of the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the samples analysed from the Central Food Laboratory is frustrated, the Sessions court has rightly set aside the order of issuance of process and dismissed the complaint. No fault can be found with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)