JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING discontented by the criminal prosecution bearing criminal case No. 957/94 arising out of criminal complaint filed by J.P.S. Goud, Food Inspector, Bilaspur on 6/9/1994 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashment of the complaint and the criminal proceeding.

(2.) J.P.S. Goud, has been appointed as Food Inspector under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (henceforth, "the Act") who is authorized to inspect where any article of food is manufactured, or stored or sold, within his area and to collect sample of any article of food which he has, reason to suspect being manufactured, stored or sold or exhibited for sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder i.e., Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (henceforth, "the Rules"). On 25/2/1992 Food Inspector accompanied with his team went to Kargi Road, Kota and inspected the grocery shop of Petitioner Jagdish Prasad in his presence. In his shop ground-nut oil, mastered oil, vanaspati ghee and other articles of food were found, stored and exhibited for sale. In accordance with law and rules he took sample of Postman brand ground nut oil stored in the shop for sale. He prepared Panchnama and other documents. In accordance with Law and rules he sealed the sample in three bottles under prescribed Labels and also obtained signatures of the vendor on sealed bottles in accordance with rules. Vendor Jagdish Prasad who purchased the article of food i.e., Postman brand ground nut oil from firm Malik Ram Charanjit Singh, Gol Bazar, Bilaspur, produced a copy of the bill bearing No. 524. Therefore, necessary information was sent on the same day to firm Malik Ram Charanjit Singh, Gol Bazar, Bilaspur and thereafter sample was sent to Public Analyst for analyzing the article of food and to give his report. Public Analyst analyzed the sample and opined that the sample does not comply with Rule 32(e) of the Rules as per declaration given in Form VII by the Food Inspector as per standard/provision laid down under the rules.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners contended that along with the petition Petitioners have filed a copy of the report of Public Analyst who did not opine that the article of food is below the standard or adulterated, but he gave his opinion that the sample suffers from non-compliance of Rule 32(e) of the Rules and thereby vide his opinion the article of food was misbranded whereas Hon'ble the Apex Court has already declared Rule 32(e) of the Rules ultra vires, a long back in 1971. The Petitioner No. 1 was the vendor who at the outset furnished the information regarding his purchase. After the amendment in Section 14 of the Act, which came into force from 1-4-1976 a deeming provision has been included in place of warranty i.e., bill, cash memo or invoice. Only vendor is required to furnish information under Section 14 of the Act and dealer, distributor and manufacturer are kept immune from its operation. They are not bound to disclose the details of their partnership or component.