Lipton India Ltd. vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P 1) under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as amended by Act No. 34 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and consequent proceedings taken thereunder.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from the complaint, Annexure P 1, are that on 7th June, 1988, at 11 A.M. Dr. Harish Chander, exercising powers of Food Inspector along with Dr. Rakesh Goyal went to the shop of M/s. Sham Lal and Sons, Karyana Merchant, Bargari Road, Bathinda. After disclosing his identity he purchased three packets each weighing 250 grams of New Richbur tea, meant for sale, for Rs. 39/ manufactured by Lipton India Ltd. 9 Weston Street Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the manufacturer) as sample, for analysis. The aforesaid packets were purchased by the petitioner from M/s. Sudagar Mal Des Raj Grain Market, Kotkapura vide bill No. (sic) dated 141988. The sample packets were duly labelled and wrapped. Paper slip of the local Health Authority was pasted on the Wrapper and the samples were secured with strong twine. The sample packets were then duly seated and the signatures of the vendors were also obtained on the wrapper of each part of the same. One part of the sample with a copy of memorandum was sent to the public analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh in a sealed container through special messenger along with specific impression of the seal used and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Faridkot with seals intact. The report of Punjab Analyst reveals that the contents of sample contained one iron nail 2.7 cms in length and 2481PPM by mass. The Food Inspector then filed complaint against Sham Lal seller dealer as well as the manufacturer. The present petition has been filed only by the manufacturer.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was mainly contended that as per report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, copy whereof is at Annexure P3, no iron nail and particles were found in the sample of tea sent for analysis; that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, under subSection (3) of Section 13 of the Act suspersedes the report of the public Analyst and on this basis it was contended that present complaint Annexure P1 filed on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, Annexure P2, is liable to be quashed.

There is considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, does not indicate presence of any iron nail, or, iron particle in the sample sent for analysis. This was the very basis for lodging the complaint against the present petitioner as well as dealer, and the seller of Lipton Richbru tea on the basis of the report of Punjab Analyst which revealed presence of iron nails or particles. The report of the public analyst has been superseded by the report of the Central Food Laboratory and manifestly the impugned complaint which is not based on the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory can no longer be permitted to constitute valid basis for proceeding against the petitioner or the other coaccused named in the complaint.

I find support on this point from Single Bench authority of this Court in N.S. Jain v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 127 wherein it was observed as under;

"The report of the Central Food Laboratory has totally shaken the prosecution case which was based on the report of the Public Analyst. The ground on which the prosecution was launched on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst is negatived by the report of the Central Food Laboratory. Manifestly, the impugned complaint is not based on the report of the Central Food Laboratory. In such circumstances, the complaint can no longer proceed. The complaint was initiated on certain facts brought out in the report of the Public Analyst which have been eventually proved wrong by the report of the Central Food Laboratory. The initial grounds having failed the complaint has become infructuous."

Reliance in N.S. Jain''s case (supra) was placed on Single Bench authority of this Court in G.D. Verma v. The State of Punjab, (1986)2 F.A.C. 246 as well as Criminal Misc. No. 1567M of 1986 Roshan Lal v. The State of Punjab etc. decided on 6th August, 1986 and also Division Bench authority of Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Jaunpur v. Reghunandan Ram, 1979(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 246.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned complaint Annexure PI and consequent proceedings taken thereunder against the present petitioner are directed to be quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that there would be no legal bar for the Food Inspector to file complaint against the manufacturer dealer and seller of Lipton Richbru tea on the basis of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, copy Annexure P3 in case any other offence punishable under the provisions of the Act is made out. In that eventuality, it would be open to the accused to raise objections available to them.

JUDGMENT accordinly.