Satish Kumar vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On 2591991 Sukh Rao Singh, Government Food Inspector took sample of Taja iodised salt from the shop of Satish Kumar who was keeping the same in his possession for sale. The sample was taken in the presence of Doctor G. S. Sidhu and Shri Nand Lal, president of Retail Karyana Merchants Association, Jalandhar Cantt. Three packets of salt weighing 500 grams were put separately in three dry and clean plastic jars and were labelled, securely fastened and sealed as per rules. One seated sample was sent to Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh who after analysing the contents of the sample reported that it contained 12.08 parts per million of iodine against the minimum prescribed standard of 30 parts per million at manufacture level. The sample was thus adulterated. On receipt of the report, a complaint was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for trial of the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16, (1), (a) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint and resultant proceedings pending in the court at Jalandhar. It was pleaded that sample in this case was taken in the form of packets and was forwarded to the Public Analyst for analysis as per Annexure P2. Taking of the sample, in the form of packets was clear violation of the Rules 14 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. It was not open to the Food Inspector to send the sample in the form of packets is the same could be tampered with. The sample should have been sent in dry and clean containers.

In the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the petition were controverted and it was contended that there was no violation of the provisions of Rules 14 and 16 of the Act as the sample packets were put into three dry and clean jars and each jar was stoppered tightly, labelled, securely fastened and wrapped in a thick paper. Each jar was sealed at the spot with seal bearing inscription `SSM''. There was no question of evaporation or entrance of moisture.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there had not been any compliance of Rule 14 and the sample was not properly taken. The complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Chand Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987 FAJ 17, Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab, 1987 FAJ 4988, and Nasib Chander v. State of Punjab, 1986 FAJ 387. In all these authorities it was observed that when a sample was sent to the Public Analyst in polythene bag or in a paper or cardboard packing instead of in a sealed container, the complaint was liable to be quashed on that ground. In criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 1975 State of Haryana v. Gordhan Dass. A Division Bench of this court 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 and in this case the complaint as well as the proceedings subsequent thereto were ordered to be quashed.

Rule 14 prescribes the manner for sending the sample for analysis which is as follows :

"Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers, which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed."

In the instant case this fact is denied that the sample was not taken as per rules. A perusal of the complaint Annexure PI shows that the Food Inspector who took the sample observed rules prescribed for taking the sample. In para 5 of the complaint it is asserted that three packets of `Taja salt'' were purchased against a proper receipt and the salt so purchased was put into three dry and clean plastic Jar. Each jar was labelled and securely fastened and wrapped in a strong thick paper. A paper slip having Serial No. and Code No. 48473/170 only signed by the Local Health Authority, Jalandhar was pasted with the help of gum on each sample jar. Then each jar was secured with a strong thread and was sealed at six points with one seal at the top and one at the bottom. There was thus complete compliance of Rules 14 and 16 as per averments made in the complaint. The contention of the teamed counsel for the petitioner that the Public Analyst in his report Annexure P2 mentioned that he had received, the contents of the sample in a sealed polythene packets so it is evident that the sample of salt was not put in dry and clean jars, as alleged in the complaint, is without any basis. The Public Analyst has mentioned that he had received the sample which was duly sealed and fastened and the seals affixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the sea separately sent by the Food inspector and was in a fit condition for analysis. It was only subsequently when he gave description of the contents of the sample he mentioned that the iodised salt was sealed in polythene packet. This is also the case in the complaint that three packets of salt were purchased as sample and each packet was put in a clean plastic jar. The fact that the seals affixed on the container were found intact by the Public Analyst, will show that the polythene packet was put in some other container, which must be the jar mentioned in the complaint. There was thus due compliance of the rules and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on that score.

No other point was urged before me.

As a result I do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same.