RAGENDRA SWARUP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this petition has prayed for a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report dated 26-7-1999, (Annexure XII), registered at Police Sta tion Chaubepur, district Kanpur Nagar as case crime No. 186 of 1999, under Sections 7 (2)/16 (9) of the Prevention of Food Adul teration Act, 1954 read with Rule 9-A of the Rules framed thereunder and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and First Information Report dated 26-7-1999 (Annexure XI) registered at Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow as case crime No. 410 of 1999, under Sections 272/273 of Indian Penal Code and also to quash the complaint case pending in the Court of 1st Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence ). Lucknow as communicated vide letter No. PFA/96/99/69 dated 22-7-1999 (An-nexure-I ). PETITIONER has also prayed for a writ or direction in the nature of man damus directing the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner including his arrest on the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report (Annexures XI and XII) and the complaint case.

(2.) THE facts necessary to appreciate are that petitioner, Ragendra Swarup is Managing Director of M/s Swatantra Es tates Private Limited, 15/54-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur which is private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. This company has a unit known as Dhara Milk Scheme situated in village Sandila, Bithoor, Kan pur Nagar. This unit is engaged in procure ment, processing and packing in poly-bags and sale of standardised milk, toned milk and skimmed milk. THE sale of milk is carried out by the company in the name and style of Dhara milk. It is claimed that per day sale of milk is around 8000 litres. It is also claimed that milk for the aforesaid business is procured from various producers and farmers living mostly in remote rural areas falling in districts Unnao, Fatehpur, Lucknow and Kanpur Dehat. THE milk is collected at various centres. After collection it is brought to a unit at Sandila and thereafter treated scientifically in costly plants and machinery. On 18-5-1999 Food Inspector of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow purchased three samples consisting of one poly-bag of skimmed milk weighing 250 Gms, one poly-bag of full cream milk weighing 500 Gms and one poly-bag of toned milk weighing 500 Orris. THE samples of skimmed milk and full cream milk were sent to the Public Analyst U. P. , Lucknow for his report. Public Analyst gave his Report No. 5006 dated 23-6-1999 (An nexure VI) regarding skimmed milk. Ac cording to this report on analysis the sample of skimmed milk was found posi tive for presence of urea and glucose which is prohibited and amounts to adulteration of food article under Rule 44 (1) of Preven tion of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 thereinafter referred to as the Rules ). In respect of the sample of full cream milk Public Analyst gave report No. 5005 dated 25-6-1999 (Annexuie III) wherein the opinion of the Public Analyst was that in the sample contents of milk fat and solid fat were found deficient and presence of carbonate/neutraliser was found positive. Thus, sample was adulterated in con travention of Rule 44 (1) of the Rules. On receipt of the aforesaid report of the Public Analyst the impugned First Infor mation Report (Annexurcs XI and XII to the writ petition) were lodged as men tioned above.

(3.) WHILE hearing of this writ petition was in progress another Division Bench of this Court gave judgment dated 21-8-1999 deciding the bunch of writ petitions in volving similar questions. We have perused the judgment of the Division Bench and, in our opinion, all substantial questions of law involved in the present petition have already been answered. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench.