news details |
|
|
| Food adulteration | | Ten days period mandatory for sample analysis | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 26 – Deciding an important law point involved in an appeal filed by the state as to whether time period of 10 days prescribed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for making an application by the accused to get the other part of the sample analyzed through Central Food Laboratory is mandatory or directory, Justice Vinod Gupta of Jammu and Kashmir High Court today held the time limit of 10 days prescribed for the purpose is mandatory and magistrate can extend the period if some ground is made out or the facts and circumstances of the case so requires.
This important law point was decided by the High Court in a petition filed by the state against the order of Trial Courts.
According to facts of the case that the complainant petitioner Food Inspector Block Pouni, District Reasi lifted a sample of Jumbo Vanaspati from the shop of Rakesh Sharma on December 19, 2005, the complainant petitioner divided the sample into 3 equal parts and one part of the sample was sent to Public analyst for analysis and the remaining two sealed samples were kept with the local health authority. The public analyst reported that the sample was adulterated and misbranded. The complainant filed a complaint u/s 7 r/w section 16 of the Act against the accused persons in the Court Judicial Magistrate Udhampur on June 3, 2006. The manufacturers of the Jumbo Vanaspati on September 25, 2006 moved an application on behalf of manufacturer for getting the sample reanalyzed from the Central Food Laboratory. The trial Magistrate decided the application on April 10, 2007 directed the local health authority Pouni to produce sample in the court for further necessary. The petitioner preferred revision petition against the order of Trial Magistrate before the Sessions Judge Udhampur on the ground that there has been delay of 80 days in filling the application when the accused has already been informed about his right to move the application. Sessions Judge Udhampur dismissed revision petition on September 27, 2007 on the ground that the provisions u/s 13 (2) of the Act are directory and not mandatory in character. Aggrieved by the order of Sessions Judge Udhampur petitioner filed this petition for setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge Udhampur.
Justice Gupta, after hearing both the sides and referred the Act and various judgments of the High Court, held that the time limit of 10 days for making an application by the accused to get the other part analyzed from the central food laboratory is not mandatory and the magistrate can extend the period if some ground is made out and further held that the Judicial Magistrate Udhampur and Sessions Judge Udhampur in revision have exercised their jurisdiction properly. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and thus this petition is dismissed. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
