AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.
The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer for quashing of the complaint, the summoning order and proceedings pending against the petitioner Nasib Chand, Partner of M/s Super Trading Agency, Ludhiana, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. A copy of the complaint has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P.1. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst, is Annexure P.2 and the copy of the summoning order, is Annexure P.4.
In short, the allegation as depicted in the complaint filed against the petitioner (Annexure P.1) is that on November 2, 1983, the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner at Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana, and found Ram Dhan Salesman having in his possession about 12 packets of Meat Masala BMC Curry Powder for sale. The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity, purchased six packets of 100 grams each from the said Ram Dhan Salesman, by paying him Rs. 30/. It is stated that the six packets so purchased were divided into three equal parts, each consisting of two packets of the Meat Masala Curry Powder. These three parts of the sample were wrapped in a strong thickpaper, which were duly sealed. According to the certificate issued by the Public Analyst, Punjab, in respect of the above sample, the crude fiber contents was found to be 15.32 as against the maximum prescribed standard of 15 for Curry Powder. The Salesman Ram Dhan was, therefore, sought to be prosecuted and in these proceedings, the petitioner was also summoned as the Firm of which he was a Partner, was a Stockiest of the recovered article of food.
It is obvious both from the complaint filed by the Food Inspector in Court, as also from the report of the Public Analyst that what was sent for analysis, sample was admittedly wrapped in `a strong thick paper'' and not a sealed container, as required under the Rules. The question of legality of the method of sending the sample in a packet instead of sending it in a sealed container, has been considered in several cases by this Court, including one by a Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 1975 (State of Haryana v. Gordhan Dass) and it was held that in view of the fact that the relevant Rule lays down that the sample should be sent to the Public Analyst in a dry and clean container, it is not open to the Food Inspector to send the sample in the form of a packet, which is likely to be tampered with. In all such similar case, the complaint filed for the prosecution of the respondent and the proceedings subsequent there to, were ordered to be quashed. The present case is fully covered by the dictum of those cases. The complaint in the present case (Copy Annexure P.1), the order summoning the petitioners (Copy Annexure P.4) and all proceedings against the petitioner in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, are consequently quashed.
JUDGMENT accordingly.