INDO LOWENBRAU BREWERIES LIMITED Vs. PADAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) filed by the petitioner Indo Lowenbrau Breweries Ltd. is directed against the order dated 19-3-1986 passed by Shri Padam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepting the revision petition of the complainant had directed the learned magistrate who had entertained the complaint, to summon the accused persons including the present petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) and to decide the complaint on merits according to law.

(2.) M. S. Yadav, Advocate was the complainant and he brought the complaint under Sections 269/273 Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and the shopkeeper D. N. Joshi of WZ-373, Sri Nagar, Shakurbasti, Delhi. It was on 26-6-1985 that the complainant was at the house of his relation at premises No. WZ-59, Sri Nagar Shakur Basti, Delhi to attend a reception of the marriage of his friend when he purchased six bottles of 'Thrill' cold drink from the shopkeeper D.N. Joshi for offering the same at the house of his relation when suddenly one of the friends of the complainant took notice of some gingers/insects in one of those bottles of the cold drink. The aforesaid bottle of the cold drink is alleged to be with the complainant. The petitioner is the manufacturer of the 'Thrill' cold drinks.

(3.) Smt. Kanwal Inder Kaur the learned ACMM, Delhi dismissed the complaint observing that there was no evidence regarding mens rea of the offence under Sections 269/273 Indian Penal Code and this fact was also conceded by the complainant during the course of arguments before the learned A.C.M.M. It was further pointed out in the said order that no copy of the report of the Public Analyst had been produced by the complainant along with the complaint and that being the pre-requisite under Section 20 of the Act cognizance of the complaint could not be taken, and further that even the mandatory requirement of Section 12 ofthe Act had not been complied with. The aforesaid order further records that it was conceded that in the circumstances the complaint was not maintainable and there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding.