RAJA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being wrongly prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in case No. 57/82 titled State v. Raja Ram, pending in the court of Shri M.L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate, (Now Mr. V.K. Shali, M.M. New Delhi).

(2.) During the pendency of the case the petitioner moved a petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. praying for his discharge. The learned Magistrate, however, declined the prayer by his order dated 3-9-82. The petitioner has, therefore, come up under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of those proceedings after setting aside the impugned order dated 3-9-82 and to his consequent discharge.

(3.) The admitted facts are that the food inspector Gian Chand took sample of Anardana powder on 21-10-81 at 3 P.M. from the premises of petitioner No. 2 which is a partnership concern situated at Kamla Nagar. On analysis it was found to contain permitted colour (ponceau 4 R. Coal tar dye) which is the name of the colour. It is one of the coal tar dyes and it is a permitted colour under Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This is the admitted position. After receiving report of the public analyst and fulfilling other requisite formalities the complaint which is sought to be quashed came to be filed.