M/s. Lipton India Limited, Calcutta vs State of Punjab

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P2) u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, and consequent proceedings taken thereunder.

The Food Inspector visited the premises of M/s Sham Lal & Sons, Karyana Merchants, Bargari Road, Bathinda, After disclosing his identity he purchased three packets each weighing 250 grams of New Richbru tea. The commodity was manufactured by Lipton India Ltd., 9 Weston Street, Calcutta (for short ''the manufacturer''). Three samples were taken for analysis purposes. 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 samples were duly sealed and the signatures of the vendors were obtained on the wrapper of each sample. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Faridkot, with seals intact. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the contents of the sample contained one iron nail 2.7 cms. in length. The sample was also examined by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, My sore, who vide report dated January 1, 1989, gave his opinion as under:-

Microscopic examination of the sample revealed the presence of structures of tea & foreign vegetable matter. And I am of the opinion that the sample does not conform to the standards laid down for tea dust under the provisions of PFA Act, 1954 and Rules thereof...

However, no iron nail and particles were found in the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, which report superseded the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab. Earlier the complaint filed on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst was quashed by this Court on May 29, 1990 in Crl.Misc.No.5278-M 1989. However, the learned Single Judge observed that there would be no legal bar for the Food Inspector to file complaint against the manufacturer, dealer and seller on the basis of the report of the Central Food Laboratory, a copy of which is at Annexure P1. Now the manufacturer has filed the present petition for quashment of the complaint (Annexure PI) made on the basis of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, My sore.

I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the evidence adduced on record.

A glance at the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot (Annexure P/3 A) would show that the complaint in the present case was filed on August 10, 1991. The Sample was taken on June 7, 1988 by the Food Inspector meaning thereby that the complaint was filed after a lapse of 3 years 2 months and 3 days. u/s 468, Cr. P.C, as bar to take cognizance after a lapse of the period of limitation has been prescribed. Section 468, Cr. P.C, is reproduced as under:-

Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. -

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Court, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be-

(a) xx xx xx xx xx

(b) xx xx xx xx xx

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) xx xx xx xx xx

In the present case the petitioner has been summoned for commission of the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ''the Act''). u/s 16 of the Act the maximum punishment has been prescribed as 3 years. Thus, the maximum period for taking cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner has been prescribed as three years. The complaint in the presence case was filed after a lapse of 3 years 2 months and 3 days. As there is mandatory prohibition for taking cognizance of the offence, the impugned complaint is barred by limitation.

Moreover in the case reported as Nebh Raj v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Anr., 1980 (11) pfac 191, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under:-

.....We desire to add that was no justification whatever for launching the prosecution more than two years after the sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst. To launch a prosecution at such a belated stage may result in causing harassment to the accused in some cases and may also result in genuine offenders escaping punishment. We are unable to see why simple cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be launched so late. Tardiness in these matters is inexcusable.

In view of the dictum of Hon''ble the Supreme Court, the belated launching of prosecution against the accused cannot be overlooked.

Still further, a look at the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, would show that the examination of the sample was conducted under a microscope and no chemical examination thereof was conducted by him. In the case reported as Jagdish Chandra v. State of U.P., 1981 (1) PFAC 33, it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that various ingredients of article cannot be ascertained with any degree of accuracy by mere ocular examination under a microscope. Chemical test is a must. Thus, the microscopic examination of an article is not an accurate method for examining adulteration in an article.

In the light of above discussion, I allow the petition and quash the impugned complaint and the summoning order as well as any subsequent criminal proceeding undertaken against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint.