Source: https://indiancaselaw.com/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-gujarat-high-court-23-09-2016/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:03:54+00:00

Document:
1. The petitioners by way of present petitions have approached the Court for quashing the complaint being Criminal Case No. 52 of 2002 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar as also the order dated 10.01.2003 whereby upon said complaint, process came to be issued.
( for short âthe Actâ) sent to the public analyst and on 30.09.2002, the public analyst reported that sample collected which is examined did not confirm to the standards of the Act and the Rules and on the basis of such report of public analyst, a complaint came to be filed against all the accused persons which complaint is questioned by way of present petition. So far as present petition is concerned, it is brought by the original accused no. 6 Pepsico Indian Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and accused no. 7 being the nominee of the company has questioned the legality of the complaint on the premise mentioned in the petition.
3. Before dealing with the case in detail, a fact is required to be noticed that this very complaint came to be brought before this Court in the form of Special Criminal Application No. 319 of 2003 for seeking quashing of the same and the Honâble Court vide order dated 02.12.2012 was pleased to allow the petition with exemplary cost quantified to Rs. 10000/Â­. The said petition was brought by other coÂ­ accused namely Digjam Retail Show Room Shoppers Paradise. The decision delivered by this Court is annexed to the petition compilation at page 52 as Annexure âBâ.
4. Now reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is contended by the petitioners that the allegations leveled in the complaint do not disclose any offence much less an offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Act of 1954. It is further contended in the petition that the complaint is not filed under Section 17 of the Act and there is no charge levelled specific against the petitioner company and its nominee. The learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated that there must be a separate charge against the petitioner company as required under Section 17 of the Act and therefore, on the basis of said complaint against the petitioner it tantamount to be an abuse of process of law. It was also contended that report of public analyst has failed to state that sample is adulterated. It was also contended that the complaint in question is inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can reach to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. It was also contended that the petitioner company is a reputed company is not at all require for commission of crime and the complaint in question is filed with a manifestly malafide, based upon this and other contentions, the petition was brought before this Court seeking quashment of the complaint which was registered before the learned Magistrate as Criminal Case No. 52 of 2002. This Court on 14.12.2012 was pleased to admit the petition and accordingly granted an adÂ­interim relief in terms of para 7 (b) and later on, the said interim relief is continued all through out and it has now come up for final disposal.
5. It appears from the record that on 22.04.2016, a mention was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there some cognate matter in form of Special Criminal Application No. 3509 of 2012 is pending and therefore, this petition is ordered to be heard along with the said cognate matter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought attention of the Court and conveyed that the facts are almost similar except the date and criminal case number and therefore, by treating the present Special Criminal Application No. 3508 of 2012 as a lead matter by a common judgement and order, both the petitions are to be dealt with and to be disposed of on the following line.
â4. Heard Shri Khambolja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant. This Court has also considered the documents on record as well as the impugned Complaints, which cannot be sustained for a moment so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is required to be noted that as such the petitioners were the consumer of Mirinda bottle and in fact they made the Complaint with respect to adulteration in the Mirinda bottle and in fact they were the complainant but still for whatsoever reason they are arraigned as an accused. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioners were the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This Court fails to appreciate how the complainant and/or consumer who made the grievance with respect to adulteration can be arraigned as an accused. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant is also not in a position to satisfy the Court how the petitioners can be arraigned as an accused for the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that arraigning the petitioners herein as accused, who were in fact the consumer of Mirinda bottle and even the complainant also demonstrates the nonÂ­ application of mind by the sanctioning authority and the original complainantÂ­concerned Food Inspector of A.M.C. Even the learned Magistrate has also erred in taking cognizance of the offence/complaint against the petitioners and has mechanically issued the summons/process against the petitioners. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned Complaints qua the applicants.
5. In view of the above, the present application succeeds and the impugned Complaints, being Criminal Case No. 155/2002 and 156/2002 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad filed by the Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation are hereby quashed and set aside so far as the petitionersÂ­original accused nos. 1 to 4 are concerned. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the prosecution against other accused persons, which shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate in accordance with law and on its on merits at the earliest.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri S.V. Raju has contended that the complaint is nothing but a clear example of abuse of process of law and therefore, contended that in any circumstance, the Court should not encourage such an attempt. While contending, the learned counsel has drawn the attention to the notice dated 26.07.2002 attached to the petition wherein it has been stated in paragraph no. 4 of the said complaint that the Mirinda bottle 500ml was purchased vide order dated 26.06.2002 vide bill no. 8414. In the said notice, it was informed that bottle was found to be of inferior of quality and request for replacement was refused. It appears that notice came to be issued with a demand of Rs. 3 lacs by way of damage sustained failing which, appropriate legal action either civil or criminal proceedings would be initiated and by drawing attention to this notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this is nothing but an illÂ­motive to excavate something from the petitioner which tantamounts to bea sheer abuse of process of law. The learned counsel has further drawn an attention of the Court to the reply which has been given refuting to the allegations and when the said reply was given by the petitioner on 31.07.2002, on 06.08.2002 Mr. Sureshbhai Chimanlal Shah, partner of accused no. 1 has written a letter to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by asserting that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The background of this circumstance appears to have led respondent no.2 to file a complaint in a routine manner without observing the mandatory requirement of the statute and by contending this, the counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to quash the said complaint which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
9. It has also been brought to the notice of Court that public analyst report is dated 30.09.2002 and based upon it, the complaint came to be filed. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the best before use period of substance in question is three months and without visualizing this, straightaway complaint came to be filed by respondent no.2 in an irresponsible manner and therefore, filing of the complaint at the dictum of the somebody is nothing but the abuse of process of law.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the date of expiry of impugned bottle is three months and therefore, valuable right of reÂ­examination by the Central Food Laboratory has been lost on account of malafide action on the part of the respondent Food Inspector who caused delay. It was also contended that the sample which has been collected is also not as per the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act and therefore, such fatal irregularity which has been committed would go to the route and therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed. It was also contended by counsel for the petitioner that in absence of any laboratory being certified for analysis under Section 23(1Â­A) (ee) and in absence of prescribed and valid method of analysis under Section 23(1Â­A) (hh) of the Act on the date of alleged offence, the prosecution could not have been launched on the basis of public analyst report and keeping this in mind, the counsel submitted that sanction to prosecute being granted is also bad in law, suffers from vice of non application of mind and therefore, based upon it, the case in question deserves to be quashed. It was also contended by the counsel that sanctioning authority before granting sanction ought to have appreciated that the sample in question was under the control of original accused no. 1 to 4 for almost period of more than two months and it is only pursuant to their pressure, sanction to prosecute was granted without application of mind. It was also brought to the notice that analysis report on record does not indicate that the seized soft drink was injuries to health or causing prejudice to the purchaser and therefore, in absence of such report of said nature, the complaint could not have been entertained and therefore, issuance of process dated 10.01.2003 is also required to be quashed.
11. The learned senior counsel Mr. SV Raju for the petitioner has mainly further submitted that complaint could have been filed by the purchasers and Food Inspector has no right to file the complaint in such an irregular manner. It was also contended that there is a clear violation of a right available to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Act and that being so the complaint is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. It was also contended that complaint is filed on 13.12.2002 and the notice as referred to above indicates that bottle came to be purchased on 26.06.2002 and therefore, the complaint being generated after almost a period of more than six months, the same ought not to have been entertained and no summons could have been issued. The counsel submitted that even the first analysis appears to be after almost a period of three months essentially after the best before use period and therefore, every step after âbest before use period â would be of no avail and complaint could not have been filed. This has clearly violated statutory provision contained under Section 13(2) of the Act conferred upon petitioners. The learned counsel has drawn attention of Rule 32 (I) as also Rule 32(f) and contended that the complaint is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law. It was also contended that report of analyst merely indicates âfungusâ which on account of several reasons can be developed and report of analysis is not indicating any remote circumstance reaching to the said conclusion that any offence is committed and therefore, the counsel submitted that the complaint in question is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.
12. The learned counsel has further submitted that Food Inspectors are entrusted with the powers under Section 10 of the Act and has contended that the manner and method of collecting samples which is stipulated under Section 11 of the Act is also not observed and, therefore, the counsel submitted that the entire procedure which has been adopted leading to filing of the complaint is exÂ­facie erroneous and impermissible and therefore, the complaint based upon it deserves to be quashed.
13. The learned counsel has drawn attention to various statutory provisions contained under the Act. Sections 10, 11, 12 and 20 and has contended that there is a complete departure from the mandatory procedure established by law by filing complaint against the petitioner in this particular manner and therefore, learned counsel submitted that this is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and complaint in question is required to be quashed in the interest of justice.
and two decisions of this Honâble Court delivered in Special Criminal Application No. 539 of 2011 dated 27.04.2012 as well as Criminal Misc. Application No. 10732 of 2010 dated 22.10.2010 and various other decisions to which, the Court would like to deal with later on at an appropriate stage and by citing these citations, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law requires to be quashed in the interest of justice. No other submissions are made.
15. To oppose this petition, the learned advocate Mrs. VD Nanavaty appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2Â­ company has contended that the petition is brought at a much belated stage by the petitioner and therefore, no interference be made in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The learned advocate has drawn attention to the averments contained in the petition memo and has conveyed that the contentions which have been raised now before the Court are not reflected in pleadings of the petition and therefore, in absence of any pleadings at the initial stage, while bringing the petition, it is not permissible for the counsel of the petitioner to further improve the case. The learned advocate further contended that there is an unexplained delay in approaching the Court by way of present petition. The sample was collected in the year 2002 and the petition is filed after almost a period of 10 years in 2012 with no explanation of delay and therefore, the learned advocate submitted not to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction.
16. It was also contended that sample which was collected was of glass bottle and the period of âbest before useâ is six months and therefore, there is no irregularity of any nature in either collecting the sample or sending the sample and the learned advocate has stated that the report of public analyst is to be treated as final and therefore, the prosecution cannot be throttled at initial stage itself. So far the specific contention of section 13(2) of the Act is concerned, she has submitted that the petitioners themselves have not availed said opportunity and therefore, now they cannot be allowed to agitate as they have waived their right contained under Section 13(2) of the Act.
and several other decisions to which, this Court would like to deal with it at an appropriate stage, but to summarize, the contentions of the learned advocate in substance is that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised in the background of this peculiar facts and circumstance and by referring to affidavitÂ­-in-Â­reply has opposed the petition and requested the Court not to grant the relief and to dismiss the petition.
18. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and before dealing with the respective contentions of both the sides, few statutory provisions are worth to be taken note of. Under Section 9 of the Act, Food Inspector to be nominated by way of Notification and Sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Act prescribes powers of Food Inspector to take samples of any article of Food from any persons selling such article, any person who is in course of conveying or delivering or preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee; a consignee after delivery of any such article to him and to send such sample for analysis to the public analyst for the local area within which such sample has been taken. While entrusting the said power of collecting sample the Food Inspectors are authorized to enter and inspect any place where the article is either manufactured or sold for sale or stored for manufacture of other article for food under Sib Section 4 of Section 10 of the Act, the power of seizure and to keep in the safe custody is also entrusted and various other powers are also invested in Food Inspector to carry out the object for which the act is brought. Section 11 of the Act prescribed the procedure to be followed by the Food Inspector who takes the sample for food analysis and the specific procedure is prescribed.
19. Section 12 of the Act permits the purchase of any article of food other than the food inspector from having such article analyzed by the public analyst on payment of such fees as may be prescribed and from receiving from the public analyst a report of his analysis.
20. Section 13 of the Act is very relevant for the purpose of consideration of this Court. Section 13 is reproduced hereinafter.
13. Report of public analyst :Â­ 2[(1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis.
(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under subÂ­section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.
21. Section 14 of the Act deals with an issue of warranty to be given by manufacturers, distributors and dealers and Section 16 of the Act is the provision whereby penalties have been prescribed for commission of offence the Act. Section 17 of the Act deals with the offence by the companies and Section 20 of the Act deals with cognizance and trial of offences which are initiated by the authority. A specific power is conferred upon the Court under Section 20(A) of the Act to implead manufacturer and other related persons and Section 23 of the Act invested the powers to frame the rules. The relevant clause of Section 23 of the Act are also worth to be taken note of is issue issue entangled in the proceedings about it and therefore, the same is reproduced hereinafter.
â23. Power of the Central Government to make rules:Â­ The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and after previous publication by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
Provided further that in case any package contains commodity which has a short shelf life of less than three months, the date, month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or prepared or prepacked shall be mentioned on the label.
while dealing with the statutory right of the accused, to get sample tested and analyzed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, the Honâble Apex Court has considered the shelfÂ­life of the produce/article and has held that shelfÂ­life of the article is very relevant. The Honâble Apex Court has found in that case that valuable right of the accused for his defence is defeated and has conveyed that continuance of criminal prosecution would be nothing but futile exercise which may tantamount to be an abuse of process of Court.
the Honâble Apex Court in the background of case found that sample was not sent to Forensic Laboratory in the absence of valid method of analysis being prescribed in the Laboratory since no examination was found, the Court quashed the proceedings and therefore, by citing this decision and taken the Court to the background of the facts of this case, a request is made to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings lodged by the complainant. No other submissions are made.
25. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon several decisions to withstand the contentions raised by the petitioner and stated not to exercise inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as also extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel submitted that this is not a case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.
Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has dealt with the issue related to Section 13(2) of the Act and has held that while considering the factor of sending statutory notice as contemplated by Section 13(2) of the Act the nature of product shall have to be taken into consideration and it cannot be assumed that any prejudice is caused to accused if the articles gets damage after the prescribed period. The said decision has also dealt with the word âbest beforeâ as defined under Rule 32(m) and has held that âbest beforeâ is that the period during which the product shall remain fully marketable and shall retain in specific qualities for which tacit or express claims have been made.
wherein the Honâble Court has stated that complaint is not required to be quashed and set aside on the ground that because of delay in filing the complaint, the accused would suffer great prejudice as sample must have become decomposed and/or deteriorated and/or would have become incapable of being analyzed mere allegation of prejudice would not be sufficient to quash the complaint that too in exercise of powers u/s 482 of the CrPC and therefore, while dealing with the Sections 7, 13(2) as also the Honâble Court has refrained from quashing the criminal proceedings. The said decision having been bearing in mind the present proceedings the relevant paragraphs worth to be taken note of. Hence, reproduced hereinafter.
â[5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
[5.1] Now, so far as the first ground on which the impugned complaint is requested to be quashed and set aside i.e. delay in filing the complaint and the prejudice that may be caused to the accused and/or taking away the right of the accused to get the sample tested through Central Laboratory as conferred under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act is concerned, the submissions seems to be attractive but has no substance. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such no application has been submitted by the accused and/or any request is made by the accused before the learned Magistrate to send the sample to the Central Laboratory. Therefore, as such the accused has not exercised the option which is conferred under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act of getting the sample examined through the Central Laboratory. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the applicant that a valuable right of the applicant to get the sample tested through Central Laboratory has been taken away cannot be accepted.
[5.2] Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the applicant that because of the delay in filing the complaint i.e. in the present case of 11 years, the valuable right of the applicant to get the sample tested through Central Laboratory as conferred under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act has been taken away and/or has been violated and/or a great prejudice would be caused to the applicant, as because of such delay the sample might have become decomposed and/or deteriorated is concerned, the aforesaid are only on presumption and assumption. Unless and until any request is made to send the sample to the Central Laboratory, by exercising the option as conferred under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and unless and until the sample is sent to the Central Laboratory and thereafter, after analysis it is opined by the Central Laboratory that as such the sample has deteriorated and/or decomposed, on such presumption and assumption that it must have been deteriorated and/or decomposed, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and that too for the offences under the PFA Act. In the case ofAjit Prasad Ramakishan Singh(Supra), the Honble Supreme Court considering its earlier judgment in the case ofSukhmal Gupta(Supra) has specifically observed and held that it was wrong for Courts to decide, without any data, that the sample would decompose and become incapable of analysis and that no useful purpose would be served in sending the sample for analysis to the Director, when there was no evidence that the sample had so deteriorated at the time of service of summons as to be incapable of being analysed. It is further observed that in absence of evidence, that the sample has so deteriorated as to be incapable of analysis, such a presumption would not be justified.
the Supreme Court, following its earlier judgment in Sukhmal Gupta, held that it was wrong for Courts to decide, without any data, that the sample would decompose and become incapable of analysis and that no useful purpose would be served in sending the sample for analysis to the Director, when there was no evidence that the sample had so deteriorated at the time of service of summons as to be incapable of being analysed. In the absence of evidence, that the sample has so deteriorated as to be incapable of analysis, such a presumption would not be justified.
71. An enquiry, as to whether the sample has decomposed, whether it is fit or unfit for analysis etc., is a statutory function required to be discharged by the Central Food laboratory and not for this Court, in proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to presume that every case of delay in furnishing a copy of the Public Analystâs report, beyond the shelf life of the product, would either result in the sample becoming decomposed or cause prejudice to the accused.
and Gangaiahnaidu Rama Krishna unless it is shown that the sample has been rendered unfit for analysis and the reasons therefor are on account of the delay in sending the sample for analysis and thereby prejudice has been caused to the accused entitling them to acquittal, mere delay in furnishing the report of the public analyst to the accused would not, by itself, be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
to be directory and not mandatory. When no time limit is prescribed under the Act for launching prosecution and certain statutory provisions and rules, wherein time limit is prescribed, were held to be directory and not mandatory, it cannot be said that mere delay in furnishing a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused, by itself and without any thing more, is fatal to the prosecution.
75. Negligence of officials in discharging their functions, and in not promptly furnishing a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused, must not result in offenders involved in adulteration of the food/seed being permitted to go scot free, unless prejudice is established. Legitimate prosecution should not be scuttled on mere technicalities, in the absence of any proof of prejudice to the accused.
77. Since the eventual test is one of prejudice, which is to be established, on the facts and circumstances of each case, by way of evidence adduced before the learned Magistrate, it is not for this Court, under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to infer or presume that even in case of delay, say of a few days, beyond the shelf life of the product, and in the absence of reasonable explanation for the delay in furnishing a copy of the report of the Public Analyst, the accused is prejudiced and his right, under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act and Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, is violated.
[5.4] Identical question came to be considered by the learned Single Judge in the recent decision in the case ofPepsi Co. India Holdings Ltd. thro its Officer Vinay Mathur & Anr.(Supra) and after considering the aforesaid decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and after considering other decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts on the issue, the learned Single Judge refused to quash and set aside the complaint for the offences punishable under the PFA Act which was requested to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay in filing the complaint and which was requested to be quashed and set aside on the grounds on which the impugned criminal complaint is requested to be quashed and set aside.
[5.5] There cannot be any presumption that the sample must have been deteriorated and/or decomposed and/or would have become incapable of being analyzed. Whether delay, in furnishing the copy of the report of Public Analyst and/or delay in filing the complaint, has resulted in prejudice to the accused and whether the prosecution has furnished a satisfactory explanation for the delay, are all matter of evidence to be examined by the trial Court and not for this Court in proceedings under section 482 of the CrPC. As per the catena of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the power under Section 482 of the CrPC are to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Such a power is not to be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. It is required to be noted that in the present case as such the Public Analyst, Food and Drugs, Vadodara had infact found the percentage of iodine in the sample/salt much less than the prescribed limit under the PFA Act. Therefore, the impugned complaint is not required to be quashed at this stage in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC solely on assumption and presumption that the sample might/must have been deteriorated and/or decomposed and/or incapable of being analyzed now.
[5.6] Similarly, the impugned complaint is not required to be quashed and set aside on the ground that because of the delay in filing the complaint, the accused would suffer great prejudice as the sample must have become decomposed and/or deteriorated and/or would have become incapable of being analyzed. The prejudice is not required to be pleaded only but actual prejudice if any caused is to be demonstrated and established. As observed hereinabove, mere allegation of prejudice would not be sufficient to quash the complaint that too in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
the Court had dealt with the issue related to âbest beforeâ use. The Court in the said decision has at length examined various aspects and issues raised almost similar which are raised here on case on hand and has considered and observed that mere delay in furnishing the report of public analyst by itself be not a ground that the accused has caused prejudice. Simply because the sample has not been sent to Central Laboratory. The Court has considered the various authorities while dealing with the relevant statutory provision coupled with the Rules pertaining to it and has not entertained the petition and since the observations are worth to be taken into consideration. The same are being reproduced hereinafter.
â22. In cases where the delay on the part of the prosecution had resulted in the sample, sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, being rendered unfit for analysis, it would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the accused and would amount to denial of his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act. There could also be other cases where the delay on the part of the prosecution could be found to have caused prejudice. Whether or not delay in furnishing of the copy of the report of the public analyst has caused prejudice to the accused are matters, which can only be decided, on the basis of the evidence, by the trial Court, and not by this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code or writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
23 In the present case, the Central Food Laboratory found the sample fit for analysis and after certifying the sample fit for analysis, it found the sample adulterated. Once there is a certificate of the Central Food Laboratory certifying that the sample was fit for analysis then the burden would shift on the accused to establish by leading cogent evidence that the sample had become unfit and the report of the Central Food Laboratory would have no evidentiary value. Whether a sample has, on expiry of its, âBest Before date or its shelf life, become unfit for analysis on account of its being decomposed, is a matter of evidence and not a matter of inference in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is only when a sample is sent for analysis, can the Central Laboratory on examination certify whether or not the sample has been decomposed rendering it unfit for analysis.
to be directory and not mandatory. When no time limit is prescribed under the Act for launching prosecution and certain statutory provisions and rules, wherein timeÂ­limit is prescribed, were held to be directory and not mandatory, it cannot be said that mere delay in furnishing a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused, by itself and without any thing more, is fatal to the prosecution.
74. On what basis can Courts presume that expiry of the âbest beforeâ date or expiry of the shelfÂ­life of the product would, by itself, and without anything more, result in rendering the sample unfit for analysis? The shelf life of products vary from one to the other. While in certain cases the shelf life may be as small as one week, in certain others the shelf life could be as long as a few years. Similarly, the delay in making available a copy of the report of the public analyst may also vary. The delay could range from a period of a few days, after the expiry of the shelf life or the âBest Beforeâ date, to even a few years. Can the same yardstick be applied in all cases to hold that the delay in making available a copy of the public analyst report, beyond the shelf life of the product, has caused prejudice to the accused and denied him his valuable right under Section 13(2)? Even in cases where the report of the public analyst is made available within time, the accused may not exercise his right to have the sample sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory. In such cases, the report of the public analyst is required to be accepted. Can a different yardstick be applied to cases, where despite a copy of the report of the public analyst being furnished immediately after the shelf life of the product has expired and the accused does not exercise his right to have the sample sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory, to hold that delay by itself has caused prejudice to the accused? Answers, thereto, have necessarily to be in the negative.
as well as the decision delivered by Delhi High Court in case ofNeerja Bhargava versus State of NCT Delhion the issue of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure delivered on 28.09.2015. and then contended not to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel has strongly contended that this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
30. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the record in detail, few facts are emerging from the record.
[a] The original complaint is filed in the year 2002 and all through out the petitioners have remained silent on their statutory rights which are now being insisted upon, the present petition has been filed on 12.12.2012 for seeking quashment of the complaint which is immediately after the disposal of the earlier petition at the instance of another accused persons dated 02.12.2012 and all through out it appears that the petitioners have evaded the main case in trial court.
[b] It is also appearing from para 5 of the said decision that there is a specific direction given in the said order dated 02.12.2012 to proceed further with the case at the earliest on merits by the concerned learned Magistrate in accordance with law.
[c] It is also emerged from the record that some of the issues which are raised of prejudice coupled with technical defence are appearing to be part of defence which can be gone into by the concerned court at an appropriate stage.
[d] It is also appeared from the record that the complaint has been filed after getting specific sanction to prosecute from the competent authority and filed along with public analyst report dated 30.09.2002.
[e] it is also appearing from the record that the complaint in question has not been stayed in so far as present petitioners are concerned and therefore, it appears that all through out during passage of time the petitioners have evaded the concerned Court to proceed further with the trial.
[f] It is also emerging from the record that public analyst report has reflected a fungus growth and this report was very much attached to the complaint and therefore on account of that circumstance that fungus growth was visible is a matter of trial to be examined in the context of provisions of the Act.
[g] It is also emerging from the record that the notice has been given not by the petitioner dated 06.08.2002 but it has been given by the partner of Digjam Retail Show Room Shoppers Paradise, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad and therefore, all through out the petitioners have shielded themselves from being prosecuted and have waited for an opportunity to thwart the case against them which has been visualized by filing the petition after disposal of the earlier petition. This conduct is also worth to be taken note of while exercising inherent jurisdiction.
31.Prima facieit appears that ample opportunity was available to the petitioners through out the entire period to agitate the issue which is now being agitated about violation of statutory provisions contained under Section 13(2) of the Act. All these issues could have been agitated at relevant point of time. The conduct of the petitioners as stated above is just to drag on the prosecution and therefore, considering this overall set of circumstance and in view of decision delivered by various Courts, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary inherent jurisdiction at this stage of the proceedings. The delay which has been tried to be projected is on the contrary at the instance of the petitioners and therefore, this aspect is allowed to be agitated by the petitioners at an appropriate stage of the trial of the case. The Court is of the opinion that the observations and the proposition of law propounded by the aforesaid decision reported in 2015 by coordinate bench of this Court, there appears to be no special circumstance from deviating and therefore, no reason to interfere with the complaint in question.
32 In view of the above position coupled with the law laid down on the issue more particularly by Coordinate bench of this Court, Court is of the opinion not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. It is found that there are several disputed questions of facts which are required to be gone into an appropriate stage and in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the court is not suppose to undertake a mini trial or make any roving inquiry and therefore, extraordinary jurisdiction is not permitting this Court to exercise in the background of these peculiar facts of case. The defence has been projected by the petitioners can well be examined during the course of trial and therefore, in opinion of the Court, this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.
33. While coming to this conclusion, some of the decisions have been considered by the Court and the relevant extract of the proposition contained in these decisions are narrated very briefly hereinafter.
â17. The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now well settled. Although it is of wide amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. What is required is application of the wellÂ­ known legal principles involved in the matter.
13. In view of the law laid down by this Court as above, in the present case, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving its opinion on disputed questions of fact, before the trial Court.
â13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. [ SeeState of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. [ SeeMCD V. Ram Kishan Rohtagi.]. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [ SeeVinod Raghuvanshi V. Ajay Arora].
â4. In view of the nature of proposed order this Court has purposely avoided to go into the factual details and controversy between the parties. This would prevent prejudice to the appellant as well as to the accused persons in future because after hearing the parties we are of the firm view that the order of the High Court is not in accordance with law and in the facts of the case no interference should have been made with the investigation by the police by quashing the FIR.
5. It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that ordinarily power under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of CrPC. As per law settled by a catena of judgements, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious.
34. From the above discussion and analysis of the background of fact, the exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction is not possible to be exercised. Hence, both these petitions are dismissed hereby and interim reliefs which have been granted stand vacated. It is expected that in view of the earlier direction issued by this Court in cognate petition filed at the instance of other accused persons who were discharged the main case which is pending before the learned Trial Court be expeditiously dealt with and it is needless to say that trial Court will examine all the defence of petitioners in accordance with law, after granting appropriate opportunity.
35. With these observations both petitions are disposed of. Rule is discharged.

References: Application No. 319
 Application No. 3509
 Application No. 3508
 Application No. 539
 Application No. 10732
 v. 
 V. 
 V.