RAM BABU RASTOGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 25.10.2010 whereby the petitioners were summoned by the learned M.M. in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector of the Department of PFA, alleging the violation of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the 'Act').

(2.) On 11.4.2008, a sample of "Flavoured Chewing Tobacco" was purchased for analysis from Vijay Krishan Prem S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma of M/s. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. The said article was found stored for sale and Mr.Vijay Krishan Prem was found vending the article at the time of taking the sample. The sample consisted of 3 original sealed tin having identical label declaration and batch number. The same was reproduced on notice form VI. The sample was divided into three equal parts and then put in one sealed tin as one counterpart of the samples. Each counterpart containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955. The rest of the formalities were completed. One counterpart of the sample was got analyzed from the Public Analyst and the two remaining counterparts of the sample were deposited with Local Authority in intact condition. On analysis, the P.A. gave opinion that the sample is covered under the 'Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003' (hereinafter referred to as CTP Act, 2003 in short). The sample was also reported as misbranded because the language of best before declaration was not as per Rule 32 (i) of Rules. The sample of "Flavoured Chewing Tobacco" was also reported to be 'proprietary food' and the sample on testing, gave positive result for the presence of Nicotine. It was reported that the tobacco being an ingredient and the presence of Nicotine in the sample article "Flavoured Chewing Tobacco" was in violation of Rule 44J and Rule 37A(2)(c) of the Rules, 1955. Thus sample was reported to be adulterated as it contained Nicotine and Tobacco which are injurious to health. It was alleged in the complaint that in view of clear provisions of Act and the Rules, and the findings of the P.A. about the presence of Nicotine and tobacco in the sample, and the sample being so adulterated, the opinion of the Public Analyst regarding the sample being covered under CTP Act, 2003 had no relevance.

(3.) The learned M.M. took cognizance of the offences and vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2010, issued summoned against the petitioners.