STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHAKTI DEVRAM TANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms.D.S. Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the applicant.

(2.) THE applicant -State of Gujarat has preferred present Revision Application challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 20th June 1998 passed below Ex.13 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar, in Criminal Case No.2903 of 1996, whereby the learned Magistrate has quashed and set aside the process issued by the trial Court earlier by exercising powers under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) THE complainant -G.M. Dalwadi, Food Inspector, had instituted the prosecution against five accused persons, including the orig. vendor -Shakti Dev Ram Tank for the offences punishable under Sections 7(ii) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), alleging that the orig. accused have violated Rules 32(e) and 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The orig. accused were found selling misbranded articles as defined under Clause 2(ix)(k) read with aforesaid Rules. The complainant had purchased saffron mixed 'Vimal Gutka' from orig.accused no.1. The said Gutkas were in polythene pouches and each polythene pouch was containing 50 small packets of 'Vimal Gutka'. These packets were not bearing necessary details which were required to be mentioned on the packets and thus, according to the prosecution, orig. accused can be said to have committed the offence punishable under the aforesaid Sections of the Act. On registration of the complaint, the Court decided to issue process on 15th June 1996, but three accused out of total five accused approached the learned Magistrate preferring an application under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and prayed for quashing and setting aside the process because Rules 32(e) and 32(f) of the Rules have been declared ultra vires. The learned counsel appearing for the orig.accused placed reliance on three decisions i.e. (1) in the case of M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2206, (2) in the case of Goodrick Group Ltd.v. State of Punjab, reported in 1997 (III) FAJ 226 and (3) in the case of Dwarkanath and others v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, reported in 1971 SCC (Cri) 514.