Mohan Lal vs State of Haryana

Ujagar Singh, J.

Food Inspector Teja Singh took a sample of Garam Masala sealed packet of Agmark from Ashok Kumar at Sirsa. The same was taken in the form of 3 packets. One of the packets was sent to the Public Analyst and after receipt of his report, a complaint was filed against the petitioner as well as Ashok Kumar, on the ground that the sample contained 6 iron pieces of the size 1.7, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0, 0.7 and 0.6 mm which were of the weight of 20 ppm. There was no allegation so far as the present petitioner is concerned except that his name was mentioned in the heading of the accused. The case is still at the trialstage and this petition has been filed for quashing the complaint and the proceedings based thereon.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the sample was in packets only, it was in violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules in brief) framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). He has cited Pritam Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1986)(2) Criminal Reports (323) Criminal Miscellaneous 1119M/1985, decided on 22.11.1985 , by Surinder Singh, J. (as he then was); Sham Lal v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 558, Cr. M 3521M/1986, decided on 22.8.1986 by Pritpal Singh, J. (as he then was); Chand Ram v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 190, Cr. M. 1657M/1986, decided on 5.5.1986 by Surinder Singh, J. (as he then was).

Learned counsel for the State has urged that the packets had the seal and served the purpose of a container and he has vehemently argued that it is only an irregularity and it will not vitiate the complaint or the subsequent proceedings thereon.

I have considered the arguments of both the sides and am of the opinion that the taking of the packets of a particular item as a sample infringes Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules. In Pritam Singh''s case (supra) the vendor therein was found to be in possession of 250 packets of 100 gms. of AGMARK Haldi powder for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 6 such packets and the same were converted into 3 equal parts which were wrapped in a strong, thick paper. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. According to the report, the sample contained maize stark, as an admixture. The point for consideration in that case was whether the preparation in the sample in paper pack conformed to the requirement of law/rules, framed under the Act. Reliance was placed on several cases, for instance Criminal Miscellaneous 5956M/1984, Garam Masala & Co. v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc. 934M/1985, Nasib Chand v. State of Punjab, decided on 10.9.1985 (1985(2) Recent CR of 283). The complaint and the proceedings were quashed, while holding that the mandatory provisions have been violated.

In Sham Lal''s case (supra), it was similarly held that packets of Chilly powder were sent for analysis in the original packing and there was therefore, violation of the Rules. Relying upon various authorities, it was held that the sample should be sent to the Public Analyst in dry and clean container and it was not open to the food Inspector to send the sample in the form of a packet which was likely to be tampered with and holding that view, the complaint and the proceedings thereon were quashed.

Similarly, in Chand Ram''s case (supra), the same view was held,

In this case also, the sample was sent in packets and not in a container, as required by the Rules and this shows contravention of the mandatory provisions.

In this view of the matter, this petition succeeds. The complaint against the petitioner and the other accused and the proceedings based thereon are quashed. This petition is, disposed of.