M/s. Voltas Limited vs Food Inspector and Others

V.P. Gupta, J.—The Food Inspector, Chamba, purchased samples of ''food'' known as ''Meal Chunks'' from M/s Suresh Kumar and Bros, of village and Post Office Sarol-Parg, (hereinafter Respondent No. 3) on May 7, 1983. He sent a sample of the aforementioned food for analysis to the Public Analyst.

The Public Analyst gave an opinion that the batch number, month and year of manufacture was not mentioned on the label. After receipt of this report, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, on July 14, 1983, alleging that the article of food sold by Respondent No. 3 was contrary to the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter ''Act'') and Respondent No. 3 had committed an offence u/s 16 of the Act. M/s Mitha Ram Puran Chand of Chogan Bazar, Chamba, (hereinafter Respondent No. 4) was also impleaded as an accused in this complaint, because Respondent No. 3 had purchased the article of food from Respondent No. 4.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 were summoned by the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate. By an order dated November 14, 1983, it was found that a prima-facie case u/s 16(1)(c)(i) of the Act existed against these Respondents. An application u/s 20-A of the Act was moved, by Respondent No. 4 for impleading M/s Voltas Ltd. of New Delhi (hereinafter Petitioner) on the ground that the afore-mentioned food was purchased from the Petitioner by Respondent No. 4, who subsequently sold it to Respondent No. 3. This application was allowed and the Petitioner was summoned in the case.

During the proceedings, an application dated July 21, 1983, was filed by Respondent No. 4 praying that one of the samples be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, for analysis. The sample was accordingly sent and the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, dated August 19, 1983, was received with an opinion in the following words:

The detailed standard for Textured vegetable protein foods are not laid down in Appendix B to PFA Rules (1955). The protein content of the product has not been mentioned on the printed carton. The label of the product which is a proprietory food has also not been approved under Rule 37A of PFA Rules (1955). The labelling of the product is not scientifically correct and the protein quality of various foods differs and a mere comparison of quantitative protein content of different products is not correct.

The Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate had given notices of accusations to Respondents No. 3 and 4 on November 14, 1983, and to the Petitioner on December 31, 1984, They had not pleaded guilty to these accusations. The case was then adjourned from time to time for various reasons by the Id. Chief Judicial Magistrate and evidence has not started as yet.

The Petitioner has now moved this application for quashing the proceedings, alleging that the same are illegal and the continuance of the same will result in unnecessary harassment.

I have heard the Id. counsel for the parties, and have gone through the records of the case.

The records show that the original complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, Chamba, on July 14, 1983, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, on the basis of the report dated June 15, 1983, of the Public Analyst in which it was opined that the batch number, month and year of manufacture was not mentioned on the label of the article of the food.

The Food Inspector was authorized to file the com plaint on July 14, 1983, and Respondents No. 2 and 3 had an option to get the sample of the article of food analysed from the Central Food Laboratory. The opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, dated August 19, 1983, (already reproduced), was received in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba. This opinion is different from the opinion of the Public Analyst. u/s 13(3) of the Act, the opinion of the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst.

At the time of giving the notices of accusations, both the opinions were available in the Court and the Court, therefore, issued notices of the accusations to the Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 and 3 in terms of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory. There is no dispute that the Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 and 3 can only be proceeded against on the basis of the opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory.

The contention of the Id. counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner cannot be dealt with and tried on the basis of the opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, because the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on the basis of the opinion of the Public Analyst. He also contends that after October 17, 1983, the Food Inspector has no authority to file a complaint without the written consent of the Chief Medical Officer, Chamba. These contentions of the Id. counsel for the Petitioner seem to be correct.

The opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, is dated August 19, 1983. The complaint filed by the Food Inspector on July 14, 1983, is not based upon the opinion of the Director, Central Food Laboratory dated August 19, 1983. If the Food Inspector wanted to file a complaint on the basis of the opinion given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, then in that case the Food Inspector was competent to file a fresh complaint. Such a complaint after October 17, 1983, could only be filed after obtaining the written consent of the Chief Medical Officer, Chamba, because under the Departmental Notification No. HFW-B(A-3)-l/81, dated October 17, 1983, published under Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India, the Governor of the Himachal Pradesh was pleased to authorise all Chief Medical Officers in their respective Districts to institute legal prosecution or to give written consent to institute prosecution for offence under the provisions of the Act. This notification was issued in supersession of all earlier orders.

The Petitioner, therefore, cannot be accused of having committed an offence for which there was no proper complaint. The Food Inspector was at liberty to file fresh complaint on the basis of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory in accordance with the provisions of the law.

In the present case, however, there is no such complaint as yet and, therefore, the present proceedings against the Petitioner have to be quashed at the present stage. Similar is the position with respect to Respondents No. 2 and 3 and the proceedings against them should also be quashed to avoid any unnecessary harassment to them and in the interest of justice. In Nagraj Vs. State of Mysore, it has been held that if the Court at any stage of the proceedings comes to the conclusion that the prosecution could not have been instituted without the sanction of a particular authority and that sanction is not shown to have been given, then the Court is not competent to pass any order except an order that the proceedings be dropped and the complaint be rejected. In 1979 CLJ 274 , State of Maharashtra v. Nizamuddin Haji Mohamed Kasam, a similar situation arose and a learned Judge of Bombay High Court, after following the judgment delivered in Nagraj Vs. State of Mysore, , directed that the proceedings in the case be dropped and the complaint be returned to the complainant.

In the present case, as no proper complaint was filed by the Food Inspector prior to October 17, 1983, on the basis of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, and for filing a complaint after October 17, 1983, it was necessary for him to have taken the written consent of the Chief Medical (Officer of Chamba district, therefore, it is held that there is no proper and valid complaint. Hence it is ordered that this complaint be returned to the complainant and the present pro ceedings are dropped. It will be open to the Food Inspector or the authorities concerned to institute any proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law, if they so desire. This petition is disposed of accordingly.