Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19179 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2011 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Purnia ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Sri Raghubir Prasad Agrawal Prop.- M/S Shri Shyam Agro Oil Mills, Marketing Chowk, N.H.-31, P.S.- Gulab Bagh, Dist.- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Prakash Chandra Agrawal For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Sumiran Roy App ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-04-2023 Heard the parties.
This application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.01.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M. Purnea in Complaint Case No. B-III-06/2011, dated 03.01.2011 for an alleged offence punishable U/s 16 (1)(A) of P.F.A. Act, 1955.
On 04.12.2010, Eleven items, all different Edible Oils including Mustered Refine Oil were seized from the business premises of the petitioner and all the samples of Edible Oils were sent to the Public Analyst for testing. On analysis, the samples failed under the P.F.A. Act and Rules vide analysis
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19179 of 2014(2) dt.24-04-2023 2/3 report dated 10.12.2010. The petitioner thereafter preferred another sample for testing as per Section 13 of the Act. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second sample has been sent for testing on receipt of notice filed an application on 13.01.2011 before the S.D.J.M., Purnia for sending the 2nd sample for analysis by higher authority. The same was sent within 2 weeks to the analysis and the report is still awaited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 19.07.2017 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 20424 of 2014 by which the case of the petitioners have been quashed.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has argued that the petitioner has not filed the application for second analysis well within time and, therefore, there is no merit in this application.
I have examined the records of the case and find that the application for second analysis was filed within ten days of the petitioner being informed by the higher authorties. In that view of the matter, for the reasons mentioned in the order dated 19.07.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20424 of 2014, this application is allowed.
Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19179 of 2014(2) dt.24-04-2023 3/3 03.01.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M. Purnea in Complaint Case No. B-III-06/2011, dated 03.01.2011 is hereby quashed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T