IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.1401  OF  2009

             [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7555 of 2008]

   GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH                          ...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus    

C.C.JANI & ANR.                                           

...  Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated  21st  

August, 2008, passed by the Gujarat High Court in Crl.Misc.Appln.No.15068 of 2007,  

filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings arising out of criminal  

complaint No.58 of 1989, filed by the respondent No.1 herein against the appellant in  

respect of  offences  punishable  under Sections  16(1)(a)(i)  of  the Prevention of  Food  

Adulteration Act, 1954.

There  is  no  dispute  that  the  sample  of  the  curd,  in  respect  of  which  the  

complaint was filed, was collected on 8th April, 1988,  or  that  the  report  of the  Public  

Analyst,  

-2-

whereupon the appellant applied for examination of the second   

sample  on  the   basis  of  Section  13(2),  was  filed  on  4th May,  1988,  but  was  made  

available to the appellant only on 17th July, 1989, i.e. 15 months after the samples had  

been collected.  On 10th November, 1989, the petitioner had prayed for examination of  

the  second   sample.   The  second  sample  was  ultimately  sent  to  the  Central  Food  

Laboratory on 6th December, 1989, and the report  was received on 26th December,  

1989.

In the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the appellant had contended that  

the report of the Public Analyst having been served on him only on 17th July, 1989, he  

was not in a position  to apply for examination of the second sample to which he was  

entitled in terms of the Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,  

prior to the said date.  It was also his case that since the report had been served on him  

only on 17th July, 1989, by which time the sample of curd had deteriorated, any further  

examination of such sample  had become meaningless,  thereby depriving him of the  

valuable right conferred on him  by   Section 13(2) of the above Act.

The appellant  herein also relied on a decision of this  Court in the case of  

Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi Vs.  Ghisa  Ram,   reported  in  1967  (2)  SCR  116,  

wherein   in   similar  

-3-

circumstances involving the same substance, the complaint was sought to be   quashed  

on  the  ground  that  the  sample  of  curd  which  had  been  collected  could  not  have  

retained  its  qualities  beyond  a  period  of  four  to  six  months  under  controlled

conditions.  Despite the above, the High Court in analysing the provisions of Section  

482 Cr.P.C. and referring to certain judgments on the point, rejected the appellant's  

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the same.

In this  appeal,  the same point has been taken and urged on behalf  of  the  

appellant by Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal.

Section 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, reads  

as follows:

“Section  13.Report  of  Public  analyst.[(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  sub-section(1)  to  the  effect  that  the  article  of  food  is  adulterated,  the  Local(Health) Authority shall, after the institution of  prosecution  against  the  persons  from  whom  the  sample  of  the  article  of  food  was  taken  and  the  person,  if  any,  whose  name,  address  and  other  particulars have been disclosed  under  

-4- 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.”   

      It will be apparent from the above, that only on receipt of the report  of the Public  

Analyst under sub-Section(1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, can a

prosecution be launched and a copy of the report could be supplied to the accused.  

Sub-Section(2) also indicates that on receipt of the report the accused could, if he so  

desired, make an application to the court within a period of 10 days form the date of  

the receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food  kept by the  

Local (Health) Authority analysed by   the Central Food Laboratory.  In other words,  

in  the instant  case,  the  appellant  was prevented from applying  for  analysis  of  the  

second sample before 17th July, 1989, by which time the second sample of curd had  

deteriorated and was not capable of being analysed as was found in the case of Ghisa  

Ram (supra) referred to above.

-5-

In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the  

High Court impugned in this appeal and we also see no reason to continue with the  

proceedings which have lasted for 28 years in the absence of any valid and reliable  

report with regard to the second sample.   

Accordingly,  the appeal is allowed.  The order passed by the High Court is  

set aside and the proceeding, being Crl.Complaint No.58 of 1989, pending before the  

Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is quashed.  

             ...................J.                                   (ALTAMAS KABIR)   

                    ...................J.                            (CYRIAC JOSEPH)           

New Delhi,       July 31, 2009.

ITEM NO.48               Court No.5             SECTION IIA

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).7555/2008 (From the judgement and order dated 21/08/2008 in  CRLMA No. 15068/2007  of The HIGH  COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)

GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH                         Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

C.C.JANI & ANR.                                   Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay and office report ))

Date: 31/07/2009  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dushyant A. Dave,Sr.Adv. Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi,Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv.   Mr. Sajeev Dave,Adv. Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal,Adv.

                    for M/S. Lawyer'S Knit & Co,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv. Ms. Pinky Behera,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

(Sheetal Dhingra) Court Master  

(Juginder Kaur) Court Master

[Signed reportable order is placed on the file]