RAVINDER GARG Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by petitioner, Ravinder Garg seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 10. 5. 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate in case "government of NCT of Delhi v. Sh. Naveen Kumar" under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as PFA Act ).

(2.) ON 27. 7. 2005 Food Inspector, Department of Prevention of Food Adulteration purchased sample of ghee of brand "mahaan" for analysis from one Sh. Naveen kumar of M/s. Apna Bazar, Gurgaon Road, Roshan Pura who was engaged in the business of selling ghee of said brand. The sample consisted of 3x1 litre sealed tetra packs bearing the label "mahaan", bearing the identical label declaration. This sample was taken under the supervision/ direction of the then sdm/lha in its original sealed condition. The sample was divided into three equal parts by the Food Inspector on the spot and sample counterpart was separately packed, fastened and sealed. The Food Inspector conducted due formalities like giving notice to Naveen Kumar and preparing panchnama. One part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst, Delhi who, after duly conducting the analysis submitted its report on 18. 8. 2005. According to the report, ghee was found to be conforming to the standards but was misbranded as it gave misleading information regarding "best Before Date" on the label.

(3.) NAVEEN Kumar had allegedly purchased ghee from M/s Manish Traders, Gaushala road, Najafgarh, Delhi. M/s Manish Traders had purchased the said ghee from M/s mahaan Proteins Ltd. having its corporate office at Janpath, New Delhi. The said company M/s. Mahaan Proteins Ltd. had not nominated any person under the pfa Act for its Delhi corporate office and as such all the four directors were made accused persons by the complainant department as incharge of and responsible for day to day business of the company in Delhi. Since all the accused persons were found having violated the provisions of Section 2 (ix) (g)and (k) of PFA Act and Rule 32 (f) and Rule 37 of PFA Rules punishable under section 16 (1) (a) read with Section 7 of PFA Act, the complaint was filed in the court of the concerned MM. Vide his order dated 10. 5. 2006, trial court took cognizance of the offences as he found sufficient evidence on the record to proceed against the accused persons including the petitioner for having committed offences under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. Accordingly he summoned the accused persons. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned MM, present petition has been filed.