HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cri. Misc. case No. 6582 of 1980 arises out of an application moved by Hindustan Lever Ltd. Bombay and by its Directors under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and Cr. Misc. Application No. 785 of 1981 has been moved by R. D. R. Raghunath Prasad and Uma Shankar Gupta for quashing the proceedings arising out of Criminal case No. 677 of 1979 and also for quashing the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur of 27th September, 1980 and 28th September, 1980. It appears that Food Inspector Jai Shankarlal Srivastava had taken a sample of vegetable oil from a 4 kg. tin in Janipur Bazar from Hari Narain, dealer in vegetable oil. After the price of the sample was paid it was divided into three separate parts and one of these sealed samples was sent to public Analyst, who found that vitamin A content in the sample was only 11-5-1. U, which was below prescribed standard of 2. 50. 1. U. per gram. After the report was received the dealer Hari Narain Prasad and the Distributor who are applicants of Criminal Misc. Case No. 785 of 1981 and Hindustan Lever Ltd. Manufacturers of vegetable oil in question were prosecuted. Sri K. C. Metha was permitted under Section 305 Cr. P. C. to represent the Company as Manager of the Hindustan Lever Ltd. Before the Court a statement was made by Sri K. C. Metha who was permitted to represent Hindustan Lever Ltd. that he could not be responsible for the offence committed by the Company. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed the order directing Hindustan Lever Ltd. to inform them the person responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and responsible to face the trial and consequences of the case. In default of any information all the Directors of Hindustan Lever Ltd. were to be prosecuted. These orders and the proceedings are sought to be quashed under these applications. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and also the learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the various annexures and the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. A sample of the vegetable oil in question was taken on 17-12-1978. The words used in Annexure-A which is the copy of form No. 6 run as below;- " To Harinarain Prasad putra Harihar Prasad, Niwasi Jangipur. Thana Kotwali Zila Ghazipur. I have this day taken from the premises, Chai ki dukan se situated at Jangipur Bagar sample of food specified below to have the same analysed by the public analyst for details of food;- Vanaspati, 4 kilo wala dibba kholkar Namuna liya gaya. In the copy of receipt annexure-C issued by the dealer Harinarain Prasad it is mentioned. " AJ dinank 17-12-1978 ko mujhse Vanaspati ka namuna Sri Jai Shankar Lal Srivastava. Food Inspector P. H. C. Birani ne public analyst dwara vishleshan Hetu kharida jiski kul taul 1500 Gm. thi uski keemat 15. 00 (pandrah rupya matra) wasul pakar rasid likh dee taki sanad rahe aur wakt per kam aye. It also mentions;- " Jiska Lot No. 24 Namuna 4 kilo ka dibba kholkar liya gaya. " The annexure-D addressed by the Food Inspector to public Analyst mentions the sample as of Vanaspati. The report of the public Analyst as annexure-E mentions the sample of Vanaspati No. B. N. O. 25/78 for analysis. The complaint filed in this case mentions that Food Inspector had purchased 1500 Gm. of Vanaspati after opening 4 kg. packed tin and have given him a notice on form VI in writing of the intention to have the Food analysed by the public Analyst U. P. In all these documents including the complaint it is not mentioned that the sample was taken from a tin which was received by the dealer in its sealed state from Hindustan Lever Ltd. or their Distributors. It, is therefore, obvious that there is no basis for coming to the conclusion that the sample taken was out of the vegetable oil manufactured by Hindustan Lever Ltd. It has also been contended that the analyst appointed for the local area from where the sample was taken was Sri B. S. Garg ana only he could analyse the sample and, therefore it could not be analysed by Dr. S. B. Singh, public Analyst, U. P. . In support of this contention the judgment in Criminal Revision No. 1604 of 1980, Hanif v. State of U. P. has been shown to me. It is the certified copy of the judgment. In this case it was observed in such circumstances Dr. S. B. Singh ceased to be the public Analyst to Government of the regions of Varanasi and Allahabad and he could not exercise jurisdiction within that local area. In view of this case and the conclusion arrived at by me above the proceedings against the applicats in these criminal miscellaneous applications must be qashed and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate against them should also be quashed. The applications are therefore, allowed. The proceedings against the applicants in Cr. Misc. Application No. 6682 of 1980 and Cr. Misc Application No. 785 of 1981 are quashed. The orders dated 27-9-1980 and 28-9-1980 are also quashed. However, the proceedings will continue against Harinarain Prasad, who is the dealer of the vegetable oil. .