Harish Kumar vs State of Punjab

A.S. Bains, J.—These four Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1621-M, 3206/M-M and 3209/M of 1978 will be disposed of by a single Order, as identical point is involved in these applications.

The facts of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1691-M of 1978 are as under:--

Oswal Oil Refinery Unit, Ludhiana are manufacturers and Suppliers of refined vegetable oils and the petitioner is working as its Works Manager. The Food Inspector visited the premises'' of Ram Lal a retail dealer at Hoshiarpur on 23rd November, 1977 and took from him a sample of imported palm oil weighing 1.5 Kg. of which the petitioner is the supplier, and divided the same into three parts and sent one part to the Public Analyst for analysts. The Public Analyst, after analysing the same, gave the following report:--

The melting point of the contents of the sample is 50�C against maximum prescribed standard of 37.0�C. The iodine value of sample is 41.40 against prescribed standard of 45 to 56.

The Food Inspector, after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst filed a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) against Ram Lal and also against the present petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Hoshiarpur. It is against this complaint and the proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur that the present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed.

It was argued on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that no standard has been prescribed for the imported palm oil under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and that unless any standard for the contents and quality either specifically or with reference to other items regarding any item of food has been prescribed by the competent authority under the previsions of the Act, then no offence u/s 15(1) (a) (i) of that Act is committed by the person, who sells or offers to sell such articles of food. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Supreme Court''s decision in M.V. Krishnan Nambistan v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 S.C. 1976, and certain other decisions of this Court reported as Amar Singh v. The State of Punjab (1974) 1 C.L.T. 400, Shanti Bassi and another v. The State of Punjab (1976) 3 C.L.T. (P&H.) 69, and Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab 1917 (II) F.A.C. 145.

I have gone through the report of the Public Analyst and the other relevant record and find considerable merit in what the counsel for the petitioner says. Admittedly, no standard for the contents of imported palm oil is prescribed either under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State, also could not show me any standard prescribed under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Rather he concedes that no standard for this oil has been fixed, but he says that since the offence is very serious against the Society, therefore the proceedings should not be quashed. I do agree with Mr. Sharma that the offence is very serious and it is a crime against the society as hardly any food article of the prescribed standard is available in the market and the adulteration has reached the saturation point. But if the competent authority under the Act itself has not provided any standard for any food article, then that authority itself is to be blamed for the consequences and not any other agency. Since no standard is prescribed under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, therefore, proceedings against the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in view of the principle of law as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishnan''s; case (supra), wherein their Lordships have observed as under:--

No standard for the contents of butter-milk either specifically or with reference to other items is prescribed. A comparative study of Item II in Appendix B to the Rules leaves no room for doubt that the rule-making authority for reasons which are obvious, has not thought fit or feasible to prescribe any standard in regard to the contents of butter-milk. Hence, a person seising butter milk cannot be convicted for an offence u/s 15(1)(a)(i) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

Similar view has also been taken by our High Court following the principle of, law as laid down in the Supreme Court authority. No authority laying different proposition has been shown to me by the State counsel. It is settled law that where the complaint prima facie does not show any offence even if the contents of the complaint are admitted to be true at their free value, the proceedings cannot continue and the Court can interfere u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. In the present case, since no standard of imported palm oil has been prescribed under the Act and the Rules thereunder, as observed earlier therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the petitioner cannot be convicted. Since the petitioners cannot be convicted, therefore, the proceedings against them cannot be allowed to continue.

No other point is urged.

For the reasons recorded above, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending before the Trial Court are quashed.