MURARI LAL GUPTA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint against the petitioners under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and for quashing the order dated 4.11.1996 rejecting the application of the petitioners whereby the petitioners have prayed for dismissal of the complaint and levy of fine on the manufacturer of the sampled commodity.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 on a sample of "Tasty Meetha Pan Masala" on the ground of violation of Rule 44(g) and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) as they stood on 10th December, 1987 as the sample contained saccharin to the extent of 4000 ppm which was not permitted at the relevant time under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. After recording the pre-charge evidence, the lower court framed the charge under Sections 7/16 of the Act. During the course of evidence after charge having been framed, Rule 47 of the said Rules was amended, which permitted the use of saccharin upto 8,000 ppm. The petitioners inter-alia, contended that as they were not the manufacturers of the said Pan Masala, no punishment could be imposed on them and also in view of the amendment of the Rule. It is submitted that the result of the amendment of the rules is that the offence is at best be described as a technical violation of Rule 47 of the said Rules and only fine could be imposed to meet the ends of justice. The manufacturer, M/s Tasty Products, who was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the present petition, also moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, paying that in view of the amendment in the Rule permitting use of saccharin to the extent of 8,000 ppm., a lenient view may be taken and only fine be imposed upon them. Respondent No. 1 contested the said application of the petitioner and of the manufacturer stating that the same were not maintainable and it further stated that the amended Rule 47 was not retrospectively in operation and the complaint made by the respondent and initiation of criminal cases before the said date of amendment are not without justification and the petitioners were liable for prosecution and punishment. After hearing the arguments, learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the petitioners to face prosecution.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the extent of Saccharin as found by the Public Analyst cannot be held as injurious to health because on the basis of further research, it has been ascertained that the presence of saccharin upto a reasonable level was not at all injurious to health and precisely for the same reason Rule 47 of the Rules has been amended which has permitted the use of saccharin upto 8000 ppm in a Pan Masala. He has further urged that the petitioners, in fact, had not committed any illegal act by using saccharin because such quantity of saccharin was not injurious to health at all. Hence he submitted that it cannot be reasonably contended that the said samples were adulterated food even at the time of collection of samples, Counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, it will not be justified to prosecute the petitioners and to punish them for using saccharin in Pan Masala to an extent much below the permissible limit. The alleged violation being merely a misconception should not be countenanced by Court and the petitioners should not be made to face the trial for a criminal offence.