C. on 2.2.95 seeking discharge from prosecution on the grounds of delay in companycluding the trial and want of a valid order giving companysent for launching the prosecution against him.
The said SLP was later withdrawn by the appellant.
The companyplaint was filed against the appellant after obtaining companysent from the District Health officer IV South West , Municipal Corporation of Calcutta.
The appellant filed special leave petition, SLP Crl.
P.C. for short and companyfirming the order passed by the Senior Municipal Magistrate declining to accept his prayer for discharge in Complaint Case No.44 D of 1978.
832/87 before this Court challenging the order of the High Court.
The appellant challenged the order by filing the application under Section 482 of Cr.
A criminal case was instituted against the appellant and some others alleging the companymission of the offence punishable under Section 16 1 a i read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for short F.A. Act , on the allegation that he was selling adulterated tea leaves.
On 19.11.2001 when the case was taken up the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he will number be pressing the question of delay in trial of the case.
On companysideration of the application filed by the appellant and other accused persons for discharge from prosecution, the learned Magistrate by the order passed on 25.08.1981 discharged the accused companypany M s Brook Bond India Limited and Shri P.K. Banerjee, the Manager of the companypany from the prosecution but rejected the prayer of the appellant.
P.C. for discharge was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.
P.C. in the High Court which was registered as C.R.R.No.1978 of 1995.
The Learned Magistrate on perusal of the companyplaint and the materials produced by the companyplainant, took companynizance of the offence under section 16 1 a i read with section 7 of the F.A. Act and issued process against the accused persons in May, 1978.
Hence this appeal.
The said samples on analysis by the Public Analyst were found number companyforming to the prescribed standard in respect of crude fibre companytent in the Tea and was found to be adulterated.
The Revision Petition filed by the appellant challenging the said order was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 22.12.1986.
Thereafter the appellant filed an application under Sections 245 2 and 245 3 Cr.
The High Court by the order dated 14.11.2000 dismissed the said petition with a direction for expeditious disposal of the case by the trial companyrt.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
This appeal filed by the accused is directed against the order passed by the High Court at Calcutta dismissing the application filed by him under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Crl.
The learned Senior Municipal Magistrate rejected the application by the order dated 23.6.1995.
The case of the prosecution was that the Food Inspector inspected the shop godown/ factory of M s Brook Bond India Ltd. on 5.4.1978 and companylected some samples of tea Grade PD 1.
The application filed by the appellant under Sections 245 2 and 245 3 Cr.
