K VAIRAMUDIGOWDA Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES the decision in coromandal Distributors v. Food Inspector represent the correct concurrent law? What is the course to be followed by a Magistrate when the second sample is returned by the director of the Central Food Laboratory with a report that the sample is unfit for analysis? Does the report of the Public analyst get superseded under Section 13 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') when such a report is received? These questions do arise for consideration.

(2.) THE petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for sale of adulterated milk powder under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accused No. 1 (not a petitioner) is alleged to have sold milk powder allegedly manufactured by accused no. 22. 2nd accused is the President, 3rd accused is the Managing Director and accused 4 to 21 are Directors of accused No. 22, a Co-operative Societies Union in the State of Karnataka.

(3.) THE Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. The petitioners wanted the second sample retained by the Local health authority to be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory (C. F. L ). The second sample was forwarded by the Court to the C. F. L. The C. F. L submitted a report informing the Court that the sample is unfit for analysis. Therefore analysis could not be conducted. On receipt of that report, the learned Magistrate decided to proceed further with the matter. The personal presence of the petitioner was insisted. Application filed for exemption under Section 205 Cr. P. C was rejected. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come to this Court for quashing of proceedings invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C.