SRAVAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This is an application under Seption 482, Cr. P. C, on behalf of the partners of the firm M/s. Srawan Kumar and Company and M/s. Jaihind Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. through its partner for quashing the pro ceedings in Complaint Case No. 373 of 1990 (State of U. P. through Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. M/s. Jaihind Bottling Co, Pvt. Ltd. and others) under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50.

(2.) THE Food Inspector inspected the premises of Firm M/s Srawan Kumar and Company, Halsi Road, Kanpur on 13-9-89 and sample of bottle of Limca was taken by the Food Inspector under Section 10 (6) of the Pre vention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground of violation of Section 2 (a) (e) of the Act. THE sealed bottle of the sample of Limca was found contain dead ants floating in the sealed bottle and the Food Inspector after following the necessary legal requirement and after serving the notice under Section 11 (1-a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act filed complaints against the applicants and four other persons. THE present application is for quashing the proceedings in the criminal complaint filed by the manulacturer of the Soft drink "limca" on the ground that firstly the sample of sealed Limca was not sent to the Public Analyst for examination and report. If it is presumed that sample was sent to the Public Analyst for report, the prosecution of the appli cants is illegal for want of supply of the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused persons. Secondly there is no material or allegation in the complaint that presence of some dead ants in the sealed bottle of Limca was injurious to health, as to bring the accused within the clutches of provisions of Food Adulteration Act. Thirdly, the court below has failed to pass orders on the application of the applicants for supplying the copy of the report of the Public Analyst, which seriously affects and prejudice of the applicants defence and lastly, it was urged that the valuable right of the accused persons under Section 13 (2-a) of the Act has been illegally withdrawn in the absence of copy of the Public Analyst.

(3.) THE next question for consideration is that the prosecution for Food Adulteration cannot succeed unless it is shown that the adulteration was injurious to health. THE learned counsel is not correct in saying that unless it is shown that for prosecution and conviction under provisions of Section 7/16 ot me Act, it was necessary to prove that adulteration was injurious to health, fne Supreme Court as far hack as in AIR 1974 SC 434-Smt. Mani Bai and another v. State of Maharashtra held in para 6: "it is not for the prosecution in a case under the Act to show that the adulterated article of Food in question was, deleterious to health and if so, how much harmful affect it would have open the health of the person consuming it. All that is required to be shown is that the article of food in question was adulterated. So far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, in the present case, we find that the coconut oil which was purchased from Pran Jivan was adul terated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard". Thus, it is clear that for the prosecution under the Act, it was not necessary to show that the adulteration was deleterious and injurious to health.