BHUSHAN PRASAD Vs. K RAVICHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-3 and A-4 out of five accused and who are facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the Act), have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No. 1116 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem.

(2.) THE allegation contained in the impugned complaint is to the effect that, the Food Inspector inspected the provision store of the first accused and said to have taken sample of the food article, viz., -Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta-, for which A-4 and A-5 are the manufacturers as per the impugned complaint, after following the procedure contemplated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules and sent the same for analysis and the Analyst Report is to the effect that the above said food article is found adulterated as the same does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Rules 1955 for -Atta- with respect to Alcoholic Acidity. THE Food Inspector after obtaining sanction from the Joint Director, Prevention of Food Adulteration, Chennai and filed the impugned complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Salem, and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 1116 of 2004.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contended that as far as Rule 14 of the Act is concerned, there is no contravention. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Analyst Report discloses to the effect that the condition of seals on the container and the cover on receipt were found to be intact, and tallied with the specimen separately taken by the Food Inspector and there is no contravention of Rule 14 of the Act. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that Rule 13(2) of the act is violated in this case as the sample after the Analyst Report was sent belatedly to the Court and thereby, the sample itself become invalid for further analysis and ultimately, the petitioners lost their right, to send the same to Central Laboratory for analysis.