BAHUBALI GULAB CHAND Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) is directed against the order dated 11th February, 1982 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, under section 204 of the Code whereby the petitioners were summoned to stand their trial under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter caned the Act) along with the other accused, named in the complaint.

(2.) The Delhi Administration has filed a complaint through its Senior Prosecutor against the present petitioners and others for offences under sections 7/16 of the Act. It is alleged in the complaint that on 17-6-1981 at about 4.00 P.M. Shri P. N. Khatri, Food Inspector, Purchased a sample of coco eclairs for analysis under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the rules made thereunder from the accused, Deepak Kumar, Proprietor of Deepak Bakary, 8630, East Park Road. Model Basti, New Delhi, in the presence of Shri Baljit Singh, Food Inspector from a sealed polythene bag which bears label declaration and the same was copied in Form VI prepared at the spot. Accused Deepak Kumar was storing, exposing for sale and was selling these articles of food as the proprietor of the said Bakary. The sample bearing No. P.N.K./277/81 was found to be misbranded on analysis by the Public Analyst vide his report No. 30/June/81 dated 17th July 1981. Accused Deepak Kumar had purchased this food article from M/s. A. L. Chaudhary and Co., accused No. 9. This firm is the distributing company of the said article of food and is a partnership firm consisting of partners who have been named in the complaint and are accused Nos. 9 to 14. It is further alleged that M/s Ravalgon Sugar Farm Ltd., New Delhi, is the manufacturing firm and had sold the food article for which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector in this case to M/s. A. L. Chaudhary, accused No. 9. The petitioners are the Directors and for In-charge of the business of the firm M/s. Ravalgon Sugar Farm Ltd. Accused No. 15 is the Accountant of M/s. Ravalgon Sugar Farm Limited.

(3.) The sample so taken was sent to the Public Analyst after mentioning the ingredients. The Public Analyst opined: The analytical data obtained on the sample is within the specifications laid down for the modified as well as plain toffees. The wrapper on the contents of the sample does not bear the name of the food or category under which it falls in appendix B of P.F.A. Rules. Such articles are required to be labeled as per rule 37-A of P.F.A. Rules 1955.