NAV KUMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A for the State.

(2.) The petitioner is nominee/ Deputy Manager of manufacturer of New Double Mazaa Pan Masala (Tobacco) "Tulsi Brand". The public analyst vide his report dated 14.2.2011 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) has found that the Sample contains Tobacco as ingredient, addition of which in any food article is prohibited, under Rule 7A-2(C) and Rule 44(J) of PFA Rules 1955.

(3.) Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as there was no material to indicate that the product was noxious or dangerous to life so the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 272 and 273 IPC was unwarranted. We cannot reach a positive conclusion at this stage that this argument by the petitioner's counsel is specious or devoid of force. However, if adding Tobacco to any food article has been prohibited under Section 44(J) of P.F.A Rules, we cannot reach an inference that no offence whatsoever under any provision is disclosed against the petitioner. We therefore, find no reason to quash the FIR against the petitioner. However, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner appears before the magistrate concerned and applies for bail within three weeks who shall release the petitioner on interim bail pending consideration of petitioner's plea for regular bail and in the meantime, learned magistrate may obtain instructions from the prosecution in the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner expressed apprehension that in the event the magistrate refuses to allow bail to the petitioner, the Sessions Judge may not confer the petitioner with the benefit of interim bail pending consideration of regular ball.