GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH versus C.C. JAIN & ANR

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' , 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 229 
GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH 
v. 
C.C. JAIN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2009) 
JULY 31, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
PREVENT/ON OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954: 
A 
B 
s. 13(2) - Right of accused to get second sample of food c 
item analysed by Central Food Laboratory -prosecution of 
accused for commission of offence u/s 16(a)(i) as sample of 
curd was found to be adulterated - Report of Public Analyst 
supplied to accused after 15 months of collection of samples 
- High Court in a petition filed by accused u/s 482 CrPC 
0 
declining to quash the proceedings against the accused -
HELO: Accused was prevented for 15 months from applying 
for analysis of second sample, by which time. the second 
sample of curd deteriorated and was not capable of being 
analysed -
There is no reason to continue with the E 
proceedings, which have lasted for 28 years, in absence of 
any valid and reliable report with regard to the second sample 
- Order of High Court set aside - Criminal proceedings 
pending against accused quashed -
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.482. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram 1967 (2) 
SCR 116, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1967 (2) SCR 116 
referred to 
Para 5 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 1401 of 2009. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.08.2008 of the High 
H 
229 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous 
Application No. 15068 of 2007. 
Dushyant A. Dave, Huzefa Ahmedi, S. Udaya Kumar 
Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Sanjeev Dave, Shwetank Sailakwal (for 
8 M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.) for the Appellant· 
c 
Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and 
order dated 21st AugU1st, 2008, passed by the Gujarat High 
D 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, 
E 1954. 
3. 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, whereupon 
the appellant applied for examination of the second sample on 
F 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 
G the Central Food Laboratory on 6th December, 1989, and the 
report was received on 26th December, 1989. 
4. In the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the appellant 
had contended that the report of the Public Analyst having been 
H served on him only on 17th July, 1989, he was not in a position 
t . ... 
+-
I 
-L 
GIRISHBHAI DAHYABHAI SHAH v. C.C. JAIN & ANR. 231 
to apply for examination of the second sample to which he was 
A 
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 
B , 
meaningless, thereby depriving him of the valuable right 
conferred on him by Section 13(2) of the above Act. 
5. 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 
C 
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 
D 
.A 
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. 
6. In this appeal, the same point has been taken and urged 
E 
on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel 
appea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.