NISHA TEA COMPANY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against an order dated May 21, 1982 of Shri M.L. Sahni Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing the framing of a charge against the petitioners in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

(2.) Petitioner No. 2 to 4, Mohan Lal, Surinder Kumar Aggarwal and Ram Partap Aggarwal are carrying on business as partners of a tea company under the' name and style of M/s. Nisha Tea Company, petitioner No. 1. On July 21, 1980 at about 2.15 p.m. Prem Nath Khatri, Food Inspector took a sample of tea sold by M/s. Nisha Tea Company. The sample of tea was sold to the said Food Inspector by Mohan Lal, petitioner No. 2. On analysis by the Public Analyst, the said sample was found to be adulterated due to presence of iron filings, out of which one was of the size of 2.4mm. Therefore, a complaint dated November 1, 1980 was filed before a Metropolitan Magistrate. In obedience of summons, the petitioners appeared. Mohan Lal, petitioner moved an application under Section 13 (2) of the Act for sening one of the samples as to Director, Central Food Laboratory application was granted and the sample was sent. The Director, Central Food Laboratory gave his report dated 28th February 1981 to the effect that extraneous iron particles were present in the tea, that the size of two such particles was more than I mm. while the size of remaining 9 was less than I mm. according to that report also, the tea was adulterated because the same contained extraneous matters not permitted by Item Article 14 of the Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (herein after referred to as the 'Rules'). The result was that the learned Magistrate recorded the prosecution evidence and passed the impugned order.

(3.) It was contended before the learned Magistrate that complaint against the petitioner should not have been filed in view of the directions of the Central Government contained in some letters which the learned Magistrate has described as notifications. In the first letter (which the learned Magistrate has described as notification dated June 30, 1976) it was stated that in the process of manufacture of tea powder, some iron filings must remain in the powder on account of the same having been left due to friction of machinery parts and that, therefore, the prosecution should not be launched if the iron filings happened to be I mm. in size and not more than 250 parts per million. Vide letter dated March 26, 1981 the tolerance limit in respect of presence of the iron filings was raised to the size of 2mm. The argument advanced before the learned Magistrate was that as the iron filings in the present case were within the tolerance limits prescribed by the letter dated March 26, 1981 the petitioner could not be prosecuted for alleged adulteration of tea. The learned Magistrate was of the view that it was the letter dated 30th June 1976 which had application and that the modification made vide letter dated 26th March 1981 could not be availed of because the alleged offence was committed prior to 26th March 1981. Accordingly, the impugned order directing the framing of the charge was passed.