S.S. Marketing and Khanna Market vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, in criminal case No. 1424 of 2005, State v. Mahesh Rawat and Ors., relating to offence punishable u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.

Heard.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 2, Mahesh Rawat is the person from whom sample of ''Paras Sabji Masala'' was purchased by the Food Inspector, in which in the contents 3.8% salt, found in the sample, was not disclosed in the packet. It is further pleaded that manufacturer and distributor are already impleaded as parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, who is supplier is being summoned, now, in the criminal case vide impugned order passed by the Trial Court u/s 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, merely on the evidence that the petitioner was supplier of the Masla sold by the respondent No. 2. In this connection, attention of the Court is drawn to the principle of law laid down in Ram Krishan Y. Paul v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. 1993 PFAJ 358, and Smt. Vimladevi v. State of M.P. 1990 (2) EFR 156 and it is contended that the trial court has summoned the petitioner without there being sufficient evidence.

Perusal of the impugned order, which is annexed as Annexure 6 to the petition shows that at the stage of proceeding u/s 246 of Cr.P.C., when it was disclosed that the item in question was purchased by the retailer from M/s S.S. Marketing (present petitioner), on application of the retailer the petitioner is summoned. Whether, the evidence is sufficient or not, as to the complicity of the petitioner in the case, is a matter of fact which can be examined by the trial court. This Court is of the view that it is not desirable on the part of this Court to hold only on the basis of the statement of the Food Inspector recorded u/s 246 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner is innocent, or not.

Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. The petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may press the points (raised before this Court), by filing objections before the trial court, before framing of the charge.

(Interim Relief Application 324 of 2010 also stands disposed off.)