Criminal Misc. No. M-16298 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-16298 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.5.2011 Paramjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint No. 238 dated 30.11.2010 titled as “State v. Paramjit Singh” on the ground that the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) have not been complied with. This Court, on 25.5.2011, has passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sample of curd was taken by the Food Inspector on 21.5.2010 but the prosecution was launched against the petitioner on 30.11.2010. It is stated that the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, were not followed and the report of the Public Analyst, within Criminal Misc. No. M-16298 of 2011 2 a period of ten days from the launch of prosecution, was not sent on the address of the petitioner. This fact is required to be ascertained from the Food Inspector. Without issuing notice of motion, learned counsel for the State is directed to file an affidavit of respondent No.2 as to whether the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, were complied with or not. List on 30.5.2011. A copy of this order, duly attested by the Special Secretary of this Court, be furnished to Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for onward transmission and compliance”. In compliance with the aforesaid order, respondent No.2-Dr. Bhagwan Singh, Government Food Inspector, Sangrur, has come present in this Court and has filed reply by way of his affidavit. The same is taken on record. Along with his affidavit, he has annexed a photocopy of the registered letter dated 3.12.2010 sent with acknowledgment due to the petitioner calling him upon to file an application in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur for getting the second part of sample tested, if so desired. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said letter was not received as the address given therein was incomplete. Whether the address given in the letter was complete or incomplete is a matter of evidence. The petitioner will be at liberty to prove through the trial that the address on which the letter was posted Criminal Misc. No. M-16298 of 2011 3 was incomplete and no letter can be received on the address which is incomplete. Furthermore, liberty is also granted to the petitioner to raise all the arguments in his arsenal before the trial Court to demolish the case of prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the liberties granted above, he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition. As prayed, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberties aforesaid. Learned counsel has also made another alternative prayer that in the present case, sample was taken on 21.5.2010, therefore, personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court be exempted. In the present case, the offence can be tried summarily also. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, the petitioner is granted exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel shall be binding upon him. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 30, 2011 “DK”