CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 Page 1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1264 of 2016 Quashing the entire prosecution against the Petitioner in 2 (C) C.C. No. 5 of 2007 from the court of the learned CJM, Sonepur. M/s. Adani Wilmar Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having a unit at Kota, Jaipur Highway, Sillar Road, represented through Sri Govindrajan, Authorised Signatory …. Petitioner -versus- 1. Sri Satyajit Patel 2. Sri Kambhupani Sahoo 3. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Petitioners : Mr. Sumit Lal, Advocate For Opposite No.3 : Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO .……………………………………………………………………… Date of Judgment: 29.01.2026 ……………………………………………………………………….. Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the entire prosecution against the Petitioner in 2 (C) C.C. No. 5 of 2007 in the court of the learned CJM, Sonepur. The Opposite Party No.2- Kambhupani Sahoo is facing prosecution for commission of offence under Sections 7 (i), 5 (i) and 2 (1-a) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short ‘the P.F.A. Act’) while the Petitioner CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 has been charged under Section 16 (1) (a) punishable under Section 2 (1) (a) of the P.F.A. Act. PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.09.2007 at about 10 A.M. at Narayanpur, the Food Inspector inspected the grocery shop of Sri Sahu at Narayanpur along with his Peon. On entering the shop, he found various types of food items exposed for sale in sealed condition for human consumption. Out of all the articles, he suspected Nirma Sudha Salt, Shakti lodised salt and fortune kachighani mustard oil to be adulterated/ misbranded and served the accused, notice in form VI indicating his intention to take samples for chemical examination at P.H Lab, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. The accused received the notice and agreed to give the samples for examination. The Food Inspector took three sealed packet of Nirma Shudha Salt of 500 gm each, three sealed packet of Shakti lodised Salt of 1000gm each and three sealed bottle of Fortune kachighani mustard oil of 200 ml each, having same batch number and date of packing and paid him Rs.114.00 towards cost of above articles. As the accused did not have any printed money receipt for his use, a money receipt was prepared and after being read over to the accused he put his signature on that receipt towards receipt of that amount. But he did not submit any money receipt/ cash memo/from CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 whom he was bought those articles for selling in his shop under Sec. 14 (a) of the P.F.A. Act. Two to three outsiders were present, but none of them agreed to be a witness for which the Food Inspector took the signature of his Peon as witness. 3. Following the principle of Rule 22(a) of the Prevention Of Food Adulteration Rules, the Food Inspector took samples and after covering those samples packets with brown paper, pasted paper slips on the same and also took signature of the accused on the paper slips. 4. On 11.9.2007, he sent one part of each samples packets with the copy of memorandum in Form VII to the Public Analyst, Orissa Bhubaneswar by registered parcel and separate copy of memorandum in Form VII of each article to the Public Analyst, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in a separate cover by regd. letter containing the specimen impression of seal and signature used by me during taking of samples on dated 11.9.2007. He deposited the remaining two part of each sample with memorandum in From -VII to the CDMO, Subarnapur for favour of his own custody. After he received the analysis report of the above three articles thorough CDMO Subarnapur, it was found that the sample of fortune kachigani mustard oil was found to be adulterated as its quality fell below the prescribed CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 standard and the report of other two articles were found to be within the prescribed standard. 5. He prepared the prosecution report and submitted it to the CDMO, Subarnapur along with all relevant documents for obtaining his written consent under Section 20 (1) of the PFA Act for institution of prosecution against Sri Kambhupani Sahu for the offence of storing, supplying selling of adulterated food article for human consumption on 11.09.2007. 6. While submitting P.R., he had also requested that the summon may be issued to the manufacturer for selling of adulterated food article for human consumption basing on the above sample as the the sample was taken in sealed condition. 7. On 29.10.2007, PR was submitted against Opposite Party No.2- Kambhupani Sahoo under Sections 7 (i) 5 (i) 2 (1-a) (c) of the P.F.A. Act from Index A17.06 of Appendix-B and Rule 42.44 of the P.F.A. Act. Cognizance of the offences were taken against him and faced trial for the said offences when the case was posted for judgment on 30.07.2011. 8. On 30.07.2011, when the case was posted for judgment, the Court found that manufacturer has not been noticed under Section 20- A of the PFA Act. As the alleged adulterated article was in sealed CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 pack, the learned CJM, Sonepur directed to issue notice to the manufacturer to face trial under Section 16 (1) (a) of the PFA Act in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. 9. One Jitendra Joshi appeared in the court of the learned CJM on 24.06.2013 on behalf of the Petitioner. His application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed. Observing that trial has to start after a person was added as an accused in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., charge was framed against the accused company under Section 16 (1) (a) (I) punishable under Section 2 (1) (a) of the P.F.A. Act, on 24.06.2013. SUBMISSIONS 10. Mr. Sumit Lal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proceeding has been challenged essentially on three grounds (i) impleading the Petitioner as an accused under Section 20-A of the PFA Act is contrary to law, (ii) Valuable right of the Petitioner under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act to get the sample analyzed has been lost in view of the delay after which he was added as an accused in the case therefore, there has been flagrant violation of right of the Petitioner to get the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, and (iii) the method of analysis-DGHS is not a prescribed method under CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 the P.F.A. Rules for which any test based on such method cannot be relied upon to prosecute the Petitioner. 11. Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the Petitioner has never made prayer for getting the sample tested so he cannot take the plea that he has been deprived of the right to get the sample tested. He also submits that since sample had already been tested by the Public Analyst, the contention of the Petitioner that he has been deprived on the right to send the sample for testing has no merit. As the prosecution is based on the report of the Public Analyst so the contention of the Petitioner has no merit. He also submits that a prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner and DGHS method of testing is correct, so no prejudice can be claimed by the Petitioner for which the CRLMC is devoid of merit and should be dismissed. STATUTORY PROVISION 12. Section 13 (1) and (2) of the PFA Act is extracted below: “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 CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 prosecution against the person 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 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.” JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vrs. GhisaRam reported in AIR 1967 SC 970 has held as follows: “The report of the Public Analyst having been sent on 23rd October, 1961 to the prosecution, the prosecution could have been launched well in time to enable -the respondent to exercise his right under s. 13(2) of the Act without being handicapped by the deterioration of his sample. The prosecution, on the other hand, committed inordinate delay in launching the prosecution when they filed the complaint on 23rd May, 1962, and no explanation is forthcoming why the complaint in Court was filed about seven months after' the report of the Public Analyst had been issued by him This, is, therefore, clearly a case where the CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 respondent was deprived of the opportunity of exercising his right to have his sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory by the conduct of the prosecution. In such a case, we think that the respondent is entitled to claim that his conviction is vitiated by this circumstance of denial of this valuable right guaranteed by the Act, as a result of the conduct of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a decision reported in Suckling v. Parker: (1906) 1 K.B. 527. That case was concerned with similar law in England, but, there, the provision relating to the testing of the sample kept with the vendor was quite different. In England, there was no restriction that the vendor could not have his sample tested until after the prosecution was launched, nor did the subsequent report have the effect of completely superseding the earlier report report of the Analyst. In Municipal, Corporation, Gwalior, v. Kishan Swaroop: AIR 1965 MP 180, it was held that, where there was delay in launching the prosecution, it deprived the accused of the valuable right to challenge the report of the Analyst in the manner prescribed by s. 13(2) of the Act, and when this right was denied to the accused for no fault of Ms, but wholly due to the inordinate laches of the prosecution, no weight could be given to the report of the Public Analyst. That decision proceeded on the basis of the value of the report of the Public Analyst being affected by the fact that the accused had been deprived of his right to challenge that report by obtaining a certificate from the CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The report of the Public Analyst, as we have said earlier, does not cease to be good evidence merely because a certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory cannot be obtained. The reason why the conviction cannot be sustained is that the accused is prejudiced in his defence and is denied a valuable right of defending himself solely due to the deliberate acts of the prosecution.” 14. In the case of Rameshwar Dayal vrs. State of U.P.: 1995 Supp(4) SCC 659, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “1. The matter arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sample taken was found to be adulterated. On the record it appears that the report of the Public Analyst is not supplied to the Accused as required Under Section 13(2) of the Act. Consequently, he could not get his own sample examined by the Central Laboratory. It is a very valuable right given to him. Rules also provide that such a report should be supplied to the Accused within a certain period. 2. The question arose in a similar case where this Rule is mandatory or directory. We need not launch into such a discussion in this case. We are satisfied that serious prejudice has been caused to the Appellant because of non-supply of the Public Analyst's report as required Under Section 13(2) of the Act. The High Court having noticed this, yet rejected the plea on the mere ground that such an objection was not raised before the trial court. It is not a question of an objection, but it is a question of prejudice. Such a point can be raised even at a later stage if CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 material on record supports the same. In the result the conviction and sentence are set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.” 15. The Bombay High Court in the case of Marico Limited vrs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2011 (1) FAC 248 has held as follows:- “7. I may not be understood as laying down that in every case, where the right of the accused to have the sample tested by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is frustrated, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. I consider that the, principle must however, be applied to cases where the conduct of the prosecution has resulted in the denial to the accused of any, opportunity to exercise this right. Different considerations may arise if the right gets frustrated for reasons for which the prosecution is not responsible. The prosecution, in this case, committed. inordinate delay in launching the prosecution against the petitioner. The sample was taken on 31.7.2003 and sometime after 7.9.2006 the petitioner was made an accused. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the petitioner was not made an accused immediately and was made an accused more than three years after the sample was taken. The petitioner was made an accused more than two years after report of Public Analyst was received by the prosecution. This is, therefore, clearly a case where the petitioner by the conduct of the prosecution was deprived of the opportunity of exercising his right to have the sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. 8. The sample was taken on 31.7.2003, today even though seven CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 years have elapsed since the sample was taken and report of Public Analyst was received it was not yet been served upon the petitioner. Even if the report is served at this stage; after 7 years if the petitioner.sends the sample to Central Food Laboratory on account of passage of time, the reports of Central Food: Laboratory would not show correct results. In view of the above facts and the above disscused decision, the proceedings. i.e. Complaint-No. 76 of 2008 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Jaisingpur as against the petitioner is quashed. It is made clear that proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner only.” ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 16. Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act provides a valuable right to the accused to have sample reanalyzed/tested. It is mandatory that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst be supplied to the accused informing him/her of the right to send a sample within ten days for analysis before the Central Food Labouratory. If such report is not sent to the accused and he/she is not informed that he can send the sample for analysis his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act is violated causing him irreparable prejudice. 17. The Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused almost after four years from the date when sample was drawn. By that time, the shelf life of the product (mustard oil) must have been long over. So valuable right of the Petitioner has been violated. So no useful CRLMC No. 1264 of 2016 purpose would have been served if prayer had been made after the Petitioner had summoned. 18. As the CRLMC is likely to succeed on this ground, it is not necessary to go into the other contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner 18. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the Petitioner cannot be proceeded against for commission of offence under Section 16 (1) (a) of the PFA Act. The proceeding so far as the Petitioner is concerned is therefore quashed. 19. The learned CJM, Sonepur is at liberty to proceed against the co-accused Sri Kambhupani Sahu, on the basis of evidence already recorded. 20. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. 21. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 22. Copy of the judgment be communicated to the learned CJM, Sonepur. …………………. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 29th January, 2026/Puspa