Raj Kumar vs U.T.Chandigarh

H.K. Sandhu, J.

Raj Kumar has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P/I pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act).

Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on March 23, 1987 Shri Viveshwar Singh, Food inspector, inspected the premises of the petitioner who was having 40 kilograms of Amchoor in his possession for Sale. He purchased 600 grams of Amchoor powder for analysis which was divided into three equal parts and was put in three dry and clean bottles. One sealed bottle was sent to Public Analyst for analysis who submitted his report Annexure P/2. According to Public Analyst the sample contained grit 0.60% and the taste of Amchoor was gritty. On receipt of this report complaint was filed in Court. The petitioner was summoned to stand trial and was charged for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act vide order Annexure P/4. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed the present petition assailing the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings on various grounds.

The averments made in the petition were that there was no standard of quality or purity prescribed for Amchoor under the Act or Rules and in the absence of any yardstick by which to judge the purity or otherwise of a product the petitioner could not be convicted for any offence both on principle and precedent. The trial Magistrate did not apply his mind to satisfy himself if there was adequate justification for him to proceed to summon the petitioner. The trial Court adopted the procedure of warrant trial by framing charge instead of summary trial which was against mandatory provisions of Section 16A of the Act, The trial was unnecessarily. I prolonged for the last five years resulting in miscarriage of justice and denial of inherent right of speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In the return filed by the respondent it was admitted that no standard had been prescribed under the Act or Rules for judging the purity or quality of Amchoor powder but since the sample contained grit the petitioner was liable for the offence with which he was charged. The other allegations made in the petition were denied.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

Although various grounds were taken in the petition for seeking quashment of the complaint Annexure P/1, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner could not be convicted for any offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act when neither under the Act nor under the Rules framed thereunder the standard of quality or purity of Amchoor had been prescribed and the Public Analyst had not declared the product to be injurious to health. Simply because some grit was found in Amchoor it could not be adjudged that the product was adulterated and the petitioner was guilty of an offence.

Before noticing the kind of adulteration which is made punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act it will be appropriate to examine the definition of word `adulterated'' in Section 2 of the Act which is as under :

In this Act unless the context otherwise requires

X X X

(ia) `adulterated'' an article of food shall be deemed to be Adulterated

(a) if the art sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;

(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed, as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

(d) if any constitute of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance stance or quality thereof;

(e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;

(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or deceased animal or vegetable substance or is insectinfested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;

(g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal;

(h) if the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health;

(i) if the container of the article is composed, whether wholly or in part, of any poisonous, or deleterious substance which renders its contents'' injurious to health;

(j) if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of variability,

(k) if the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the prescribed limit.

(l) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits or variability, which renders it injurious to health;

(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard of its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health.

xx xx. xx

Section 16(1)(a)(i), of the Act makes a person punishable only for such adulterated food as is mentioned in subclause (in) of clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act. In the instant case the quality or purity of Amchoor is not below the prescribed standard nor its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability since no standard regarding quality or purity has been settled. This matter has already been decided by the Supreme Court in M.V. Krishnan Nambissn v. State of Kerala, 1979(1) FAC 72 which was a case of butter milk which contained 11 per cent water and no standard of quality was prescribed. It was held that as no standard of quality or purity or butter milk having been prescribed under the Rules, the accused did not commit the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. In the case of Lekh Ram v. The State, 1980(II) FAC 166 it was observed that fruit cream not being icecream and no standard for fruit cream having been prescribed no yardstick was available by which to judge the purity or otherwise of the product taken from the petitioner therein and in the absence of a prescribed standard no conviction was possible both on principle or on precedent.

Jang Bahadur v. The State of Punjab, 1984(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 255 was a case where sample of Amchoor was taken and the Public Analyst opined that the sample contained grit to the tune of 0.64 per cent and its taste was also gritty. It was held that there was no escape from the conclusion that as no standard of quality or purity was prescribed for Amchoor powder the prosecution of the petitioner under section 16(a)(i) of the Act was uncalled for. The learned counsel for the respondent could not produce any authority to show that merely presence of some grit in a product for which no standard of quality of purity was prescribed would make the person from whom the sample was taken, liable for punishment under Section 16(1)a(i) of the Act.

As a result I accept this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P/1 and resultant proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh against the petitioner.