Anil Kumar and Another vs State of H.P.

A.L. Vaidya, J.—The present petition has been preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of complaint and other resultant orders and proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called as the Act).

The facts giving rise to the present petition are that Food Inspector, Shimla on 29th May, 1981 took a sample of ''Atta'' from Sh.Amrit Lai, and as per procedure one of the parts of the sample was sent to Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the contents of the sample contained eight living insects, and as such, the sample was unfit for human consumption. Thereafter, a joint complaint was preferred against Amrit Lai and M/s Siri Ram Om Parkash, commission agents in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, and during the pendency of that complaint M/s Siri Ram Om Parkash with the permission of the court got sent the retained sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, who opined that there were three living insects and seven dead insects and 11 dead insects larva present in the sample. He also opined that the Alcoholic acidity was above the maximum prescribed limit. According to the Director, the alcoholic acidity was, however, subject to increase from the date of drawl of sample and its ultimate analysis in the laboratory.

M/s Siri Ram Om Parkash, Commission Agents, who were arrayed as accused, preferred an application u/s 20-A of the Act and on the basis of this application, M/s Madan Flour Mill, was also arrayed as one of the accused.

The aforesaid complaint submitted against the Petitioners and the subsequent orders passed in the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla have been assailed on various grounds, the detail of which is not essential for the disposal of the present petition, as this Court proposes to dispose of the petition on the grounds being discussed hereunder alone.

There is no dispute to the proposition that under its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure interference can be there by this Court, in case continuance of the complaint and the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate can be said to be abuse of process of law and it may result in substantial injustice to the accused persons, moreso, to the present Petitioners.

In the present case, the sample was taken on 29th May, 1981. There is nothing on record to suggest, even remotely, that the Food Inspector noticed any living or dead insects at the time of taking of the sample in the "Atta''. The Public Analyst analysed the sample on 23rd of June, 1981, who opined that eight living insects were there. There is nothing in the report that these insects were detected after microscopic examination of the sample. The Alcoholic Acidity at that time was found to be 0.08%. Under Rule A. 18.02, the Alcoholic acidity (with 90% percent alcohol), expressed as H2SO4 (on dry weight basis), is required to be not more than 0.12%. The Public Analyst report recorded the Alcoholic acidity to be within the prescribed limit.

The Director, Central Food Laboratory recorded that there were three live insects and seven dead insects alongwith 11 dead insects larva. Again, there is nothing in the report of the Director that these insects were detected after microscopic examination. In so far as the standard of Alcoholic acidity was concerned, the Director has very specifically mentioned in his report that this alcoholic acidity was subject to increase from the date of drawl of sample and its ultimate analysis in the laboratory, meaning thereby, that increase, if any, in alcoholic acidity could be attributed to the lapse of time which took place between taking of the sample and the analysis by the director. This aspect of the opinion appears to be correct one, inasmuch as on 23rd day of June, 1981 when the Public Analyst analysed the sample, the alcoholic acidity was found to be 0.08% within the prescribed limit and the Director analysed the sample on 24th of October, 1981, say after a period of about five months after the taking of the sample and the likelihood of alcoholic acidity having ''been (sic) increased on the basis of the opinion given by the Director, himself could not be ruled out.

On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the likelihood of insects having been (sic) cropped up during the transit period also could not be ruled out, especially when it has been noticed in the two reports referred to above that the earlier report contained less insects, while the later report contained more dead and living insects, which could also lead to this inference that by the passage of time, these insects dead or alive have been (sic) cropped up in the sample and in this background, the] possibility of sample being insect free at the time of taking of the sample could not be ruled out.

In case, two reports referred to above are given the meaning as has been so given and as discussed above, there remains absolutely no legally competent evidence to connect the accused persons with the alleged commission of the offence of selling the adulterated ''Atta''.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the present case is a fit one where interference is called for by this Court under the inherent powers, especially when, apart from the circumstances discussed hereinabove, the occurrence took place in the year 1981 and the proceedings have not yet been completed uptil 1995. The present petition is accepted and the complaint alongwith the proceedings taken on the basis of the said complaint are quashed. The present Petitioners alongwith the remaining accused persons stand discharged. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.