Raj Kumar vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the complaint dated 8.5.1989 Annexure P1 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as also order dated 8.3.1994, Annexure P4, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali vide which the application made by the petitioner for his discharge was dismissed.

Petitioner is being prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as the sample of mustard oil unfiltered was, as per the report of the Public Analyst, not clear and contained suspended matter settled at the bottom whereas it should have been clear and free from suspended matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the cotton seed oil to come within the definition of food must be oil which has been refined and dehydrated whereas in the present case when the sample was drawn the mustard oil was unrefined and unfiltered. Thus, the contention of learned counsel is that the item would not fall within the definition of the ''food''. For his aforestated contention, he relied on Bharat Bhushan v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) PFA Cases 241. This is how the matter was proceeded with in Bharat Bhushan''s case (supra).

"According to the definition given in Section 2(v) of the Act, food means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes (a) any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food, (b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central Govt. may having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the official gazette, as food for the purpose of this Act. When these two definitions are read together the conclusion has to be drawn that the cotton seed oil to come within the definition of food must be oil which has been refined and dehydrated. In the present case when the sample was drawn the cotton seed oil was unfiltered and unrefined. This item did not fall within the definition of the ''food'' and as such the Food Inspector was hardly competent to draw the sample or to start prosecution of the petitioner."

The matter is, thus, squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by way of judgment aforesaid which could not possibly be distinguished by learned counsel appearing for the State.

This petition is, thus, allowed. Complaint Annexure P1 and order, Annexure P4 passed by the trial Magistrate are set aside.