SUDHIR BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 335 of 2006; Food Inspector Vs. Sudhir bist and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Pauri Garhwal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the product purchased from the petitioner was not found adulterated by the public analyst. It is further argued that the petitioner is an authorized dealer and is protected under Section 20 read with Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. The perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner is being prosecuted not for selling the adulterated item but for selling an item purchased by the Food Inspector in violation of Rule 36,7 (A) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules framed under the Act, for the reason of non-disclosure of date of expiry (use best before ).

(3.) THIS Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. has only to see if the ingredients of the offences are made out for which the petitioner is being prosecuted. Whether the petitioner is innocent or not is to be seen by the trial court after examining the witnesses. Since, public analyst report is there in support of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and sanction of C. M. O. is also obtained, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned prosecution.