Partha Sarathi Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and Another

R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal case of P.F.A. No. 13/04 (T.R. No. 1728/04), including the order dated 06/04/2004, whereby and whereunder the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, took cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the complainant that he purchased three bottles of Mirinda Orange on 09/08/2003 from the shop of Harmeet Singh. The said Mirinda Orange had been manufactured by M/S. S.M.V. Beverages to which the petitioner is the General Manager. The complainant, after purchasing the bottles of the soft drink (Mirinda Orange), sent it for its chemical analysis. During chemical analysis it was found that the manufacturer had not printed ''best before use'' over the cap of the bottles and at the same time extent of sugar content had also not been disclosed. Having received the said chemical analysis report, a complaint was lodged, which was registered as P.F.A. No. 13/04 u/s 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly, the Court took cognizance of the offence u/s 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against the petitioner and others vide its order dated 06/04/2004, which is under challenge.

Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the entire prosecution is bad as the requirement of putting forth ''best before use'' and also requirement of giving quantity of sugar was mandated vide notification dated 30th December 2002, but it were made effective w.e.f. from October 2003, whereas the samples had been purchased on 09/08/2003, on which date there was no such requirement of law of putting forth ''best before use'' and the quantity of sugar over the bottles of soft drink (Mirinda Orange) and under the circumstances the trial court certainly committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence vide its order dated 06/04/2004.

Submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner gets substantiated from the notification issued in this respect on 30th December 2002, which has been annexed as Annexure, Under that notification a new Rule the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules 2002, was notified. Under Sub-Clause (ii) of Rule 32, it was stipulated that the date of manufacture'' and the ''best before use'' shall invariably appear on the body of the bottle. Similarly, as per Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 42, ''quantity of sugar added.....gm/100 gm'', is to be given over the level but those two provisions as per the notification, were made effective from October, 2003, but here in the instant case sample was purchased on 09/08/2003, which was sent for its chemical examination whereby, chemical Analyst did find that these two stipulations ''best before use'' and the sugar contains, were never there over the bottles. This requirement was never supposed to be fulfilled before October, 2003 and, thereby, no offence can be said to have been committed either by the persons, who sold the bottles or by the manufacturing company. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 06/04/2004, taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is hereby quashed.

In the result, this application stands allowed.