C A NAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur pursuant to the complaint as made by the respondent No.2 Food Inspector. Further challenge is to the order dated 30/10/1998 (Annexure P2) issuing process to the petitioners in complaint case No. 1334/1999 (re-numbered as complaint case No. 1150/2006).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 27/4/1998 one H.C. Panji, Food Inspector had visited one Netaji Hotel at Katora Talab, Raipur and had purchased three packets of the product "Lahar Bhujia" weighing 200 grams and thereafter, had sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst and on 2/6/1998 the report was received from the said Public Analyst, wherein it has been stated that the said sample tested positive for the contents of Tiwda Dal (Kesari Dal) and hence it was found to be adulterated. After obtaining the consent on 11th September, 1998, the complaint case was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 30th October, 1998 and the process was issued to the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 herein is the nominee of the Company M/s Frito Lay India, who was the manufacturer of the said product "Lahar Bhujia" whereas the petitioner No.2 is the manufacturer.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submit that the sampling of the product was done on 27.4.1998 and on that date there was no notification as contemplated under Rule 44A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He submits that by notification dated 6th April, 2000, a relevant rule has been made effective to the State of Madhya Pradesh by Notification No. F10-62/98/M2/ 17. According to the counsel for the petitioners, once the Rule 44A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 has been made applicable with effect from 6th April, 2000, under no stretch of imagination the petitioners can be prosecuted for violating the said Rule on the basis of sample Report dated 2.6.1998. He submits that this point has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar, v. State of M.P