A C MOHAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them for the alleged offence under Sections 7(ii) & 16 (1) (a) (i) & Section 2 (ix) (a) & (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") r/w Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules) on the allegation of misbranding the turmeric powder.

(2.) MR. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been implicated as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in this case on the allegation of adulteration of turmeric powder. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the samples were sent for analysis and the Analyst's report is to the effect that there is no adulteration in the samples and the same is in conformity with the standard prescribed under the PFA Act and Rules. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that after receiving such Analyst's report in favour of the petitioners, the Food Inspector has chosen to prefer a complaint on a new allegation of misbranding and also violation of rules in respect of non-mentioning of batch number, best before use, manufacturing date, retail price etc. Learned senior counsel further contended that the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground that the Analyst's report itself clearly reveals that there is no adulteration in the samples said to have been seized from the petitioners.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned complaint and also the materials available on record.