STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA SHIVRATAN KOSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing seven applications filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). In the applications prayer was made to quash the proceedings pending before four Judicial Magistrates and one Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom three proceedings were pending. The cases were instituted on the basis of complaints filed for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7(1) and 7(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act'). It was indicated in the complaints that the Food Inspector had gone to the shop of the respondents and had obtained sample in accordance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules'). The samples were sent to the public analyst and the report was received showing that the food product of samples which were collected contained 'Saccharin'. The use of Saccharin or addition thereof in a food product was impermissible and food articles containing Saccharin which was not permitted to be used made the food article adulterated. The present respondents had stored the food articles in the business premises with the intention to sell them and had actually sold the articles to the Food Inspector. On receiving the complaints the concerned Magistrates registered the complaints and issued process. The High Court was moved for quashing the complaints. It was the stand of the applicants that the sample did not contain any prohibited substance and the food article was not adulterated. The stand was that the food product in respect of which the samples were collected was really a Pan Masala and, therefore, has to be construed as such. It was therefore submitted that if it is treated as Pan Masala it fulfills the requisite standard.

(2.) Stand of the present appellants was that the quantum of artificial sweetener exceeded the maximum limit of artificial sweetener.

(3.) The High Court accepted the prayer on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.