NAVNEET IODIZED SALT WORKS Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 21.09.2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, so far as it relates to summoning of the present petitioner in Criminal Case No. 2800 of 2001, relating to offence punishable under Section 7 / 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the parties.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that on 23.05.2001, at about 10:30 A.M., respondent No. 2 (Food Inspector) came to the shop of Salim Khan at Rudrapur, and purchased a packet of iodized salt for analysis, in the presence of witness Mani Ram. In making purchase and sealing the samples, necessary rules were complied with, and a sample was sent for chemical analysis, after The Public Analyst, affixing the code slip etc. Lucknow, vide his report dated 4th of July 2001, declared that no adulteration was found in the item sent for chemical analysis. However, it was found that there was violation of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as month and batch number of packing and `Use best before up to month and year', was not disclosed on the product. Though, the sample was purchased from one Salim Khan, who is facing the trial, the present petitioner Navneet Iodized Salt Works appears to have been summoned to face the trial as he disclosed name of manufacturer of the salt sold by Salim Khan to the Food Inspector.