CAREW AND CO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Jain, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C, for quashing the complaint filed against applicant No. 2, N. K. Mittal and another person under Section 7 (1)/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 17-12-1986 at about 2-30 p. m. the Food Inspector Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur visited the country liguor shop run by Dileep Kumar as well as Pradeep Kumar THEkedar and M/s. Carew and Co. Ltd. THE Food Inspector found that 'masala', Santara and 'sada' country liquor was stored for sale. THE Inspector suspect ed that the 'masala' country liquor is adulterated. He, therefore, gave notice to Dileep Kumar and purchased a bottle of 'masala sarab' after paying Rs. 48. THE sealed bottle was opened in the presence of witnesses and samples were taken in three bottles which were duly sealed. One of the bottles was sent to Public Analyst U. P. Lucknow and the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Chief Medical Officer, Shahjahanpur. THE Public Analyst reported that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standards. On this basis a prosecution was launched after obtaining sanction from the C. M. O. on filing of the complaint 2nd A. C. J. M. , Shahjahanpur issued warrant against the Manager of Carew and Company. Under these circumstances the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the complaint and the summoning order.

(3.) IN support of this contention the learned Counsel for the applicants has filed Annexure '5' which is a copy of a judgment given by Punjab and Haryana High Court. IN the cited case |the Food INspector took a sample of Dry Gin manufactured by Carews and it was found that the alcoholic strength was 78. 80 proof against the declared alcoholic strength of 75 shown on the bottle. IN these circumstances it was held that no offence is made out against the applicants. Another case of Punjab and Haryana High Court which has been cited is Annexure '6'. IN that case also the alcoholic strength was found to be 78. 87 proof instead of 75 proof. It was held that admittedly no standard of alcoholic strength is prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears from the judgment that the Food INspector relied on Rule 29 which prohibits the use of coal-tar-dye. As no coal-tar-dye was detected in the sample no offence was made out. IN the instant case also the report of the Public Analyst has stated that no coal-tar-dye was found. The third case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant is Annexure '7' which is an order of the Lucknow Bench of this Court. That is only an order of admission.