M/s. Rajesh and Corporation and Another vs State of H.P. and Others

T.R. Handa , J.—The Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedureto seek the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, u/s 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and which proceedings were initiated pursuant to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, dated 14th December, 1984, copy found at Annexure-PE.

It appears that the Food Inspector, Chamba, on 27-10-1982 purchased a sample of "Haldi powder 600 grams Ag/sealed" for the purposes of analysis under the Act from Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter called the vendor). Respondent No. 2 had purchased the stuff from Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called the dealer) and at the time of selling the sample he had produced the necessary bills/vouchers before the Food Inspector which substantiated his plea that he has purchased the stuff from the dealer. The sample so purchased was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst for analysis under the provisions of the Act. The Public Analyst gave his report on 6-12-1982. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample answered the prescribed standard for purity. Towards the end of his report, however, the Public Analyst remarked "and am of the opinion that contents are packed in a paper packet printed as ''Agmark Haldi Powder, Jyoti Spices Amrit-saretc'' The packet, however, does not bear any Agmark seal".

On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a complaint u/s 16(1)(a)(i) ofthe Act both against the vendor as also the dealer. On the complaint being presented before him the Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoned the vendor as also the dealer, as, according to him, a prima-facie case was made out against them for selling ''adulterated'' Haldi powder. After the vendor and the dealer put in appearance in Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate stated accusations to them wherein it was stated that the sample of Haldi powder purchased from them was found not to bear the Agmark seal and hence by selling Haldi powder without Agmark seal, they committed an offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i)''of the Act.

The dealer thereafter moved an application u/s 20-A of the Act before the Magistrate alleging that he had puichased the Haldi powder out of which supplies were made to the vendor from the manufacturer, namely, the present Petitioners. It was on that application of the dealer that the present Petitioners were summoned to face their trial u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

On going through the complaint filed by the Food Inspector before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the documents accompanying such complaint, I find that proceedings initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of this complaint are wholly vitiated not only against the present Petitioners but also against the Respondents vendor and dealer. The manner in which the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded his first order dated 6-1-1983 summoning the vendor and the dealer clearly shows that he did not care even to have a look into the contents of the complaint much less to apply his mind thereto with a view to satisfy himself if there was adequate justification for him to proceed further with the complaint and summon the accused persons. The. observations made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the aforesaid order that "prima-facie a case is made out against the accused for selling adulterated Haldi Powder", bear ample testimony to my above conclusion. The term "adulterated" is defined in Section 2(i-a) of the Act. Neither the report of the Public Analyst attached with- the complaint describes the sample of Haldi powder in question as adulterated nor the Food Inspector cared to describe it so in his complaint. I wonder how the learned Magistrate observed that a prima-facie case for selling adulterated Haldi powder was found to exist against the accused persons. In the accusations stated to the vendor and dealer after they appeared in Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, did not state if they had sold adulterated Haldi powder but on the other hand stated that the sealed packets sold by them did not bear any Agmark seal and by selling sealed packets of Haldi not bearing Agmark seal they committed an offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. This again reflects the casual manner in which the Magistrate acted while stating the accusations to the vendor and the dealer. There is no requirement either of the Act or of the Rules framed thereunder that selling of Haldi packets without Agmark seal is prohibited or would constitute an offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. A person would be liable for punishment u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act only if he, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of Sub-clause (m) of clause (i-a) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under the provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority. An article of food would be adultera-ed within the meaning of Sub-clause (m) of clause (i-a) of Section 2 if the quality or purity of article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health. As earlier remarked, the sample of Haldi powder involved in the instant case answered the prescribed standard of purity. It was, therefore, not adulterated within the meaning of Sub-clause (m) of clause (i-a) of Section 2. There is no allegation if the sale of Haldi powder in packets without bearing Agmark seal was prohibited under any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder or by any order of the Food (Health) Authority. In fact no such provision, rule or order has been quoted. On the allegations made in the complaint, therefore, no case punishable u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was made out against the accused persons named in the complaint. In case the Magistrate had cared to apply his judicial mind to the contents of the complaint presented before him and the documents accompanying thereto, he would have dismissed the complaint straightaway without bothering the accused persons to appear before him to face the trial.

Looking from. yet Anr. angle, the documents in the omplaint reveal that the sample alleged to have been purchased by the Food Inspector from the vendor was comprised of "Haldi powder Ag/sealed" suggesting thereby that the sample contained Agmark seal at the time of its purchase. Even in form No. VII with which this sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector, the substance despatched for analysis was described as "Haldi powder Ag/sealed". This would suggest that the packets of Haldi powder purchased as sample by the Food Inspector from the vendor were bearing Agmark seal at the time of sale as also at the time when the same were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. If at the time of actual analysis the Agmark seal was found missing, the vendor and for that matter the dealer and manufacturer could not be fastened with any liability.

I thus find that inasmuch as the sample of Haldi powder sold by the vendor to the Food Inspector was neither adulterated nor misbranded within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act, the Petitioners and Respondents No. 2 and 3 cannot be said to have committed any offence by the sale of such sample. The criminal proceedings initiated against them on the basis of the complaint of the Food Inspector and which are now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, are, therefore, totally vitiated in law and are hereby quashed.

Before parting with this case I would like to draw the attention of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the observations made by this Court in the case of M/s Gopi Nath and Sons v. State of Htmachal Pradesh and Anr. , reported in ILR 1980 (HP) 678, wherein this Court after considering the provisions found in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, observed:

It would thus necessarily follow that before directing issue of process against an accused person, the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the material before him and ascertain not only that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further in the complaint but also the nature of the offence for which the accused need be summoned. It necessarily follows that under this provision the Magistrate does not enjoy an unrestricted power io summon a person at his whim, fancy or caprice simply because a complaint has been filed against him. Although strictly speaking it is no requirement of Section 204 that an order directing issue of process against the accused be supported by detailed reasons, nonetheless this order has to be made by the Magistrate after applying his judicial mind to the material on record and this application of mind must be exhibited in the order itself in one way or the other. An order passed by the Magistrate without application of such mind would be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

It was also emphasised by this Court in the aforesaid judgment that an order summoning a person to appear in Court of law to face a criminal charge is not a routine and an innocuous order but entails serious consequences. It has the effect of abridging the liberty of a citizen which is held so precious and sacred in our Republic. Such an order must not, therefore, be passed unless it has the sanction of law behind it. It is a pity that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, has not cared to follow the guidelines laid by this Court in the above mentioned case.