KAILASH AGARAWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashment of the criminal complaint case No.2436/07 pending before JMFC Gwalior arising out of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Gwalior against the applicants for the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "PFA Act").

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are, the applicants are the partners of the registered partnership firm doing the business of oil trade and industry situated at near Gaurav Dharamkanta, A.B. Road, Gwalior. As per the direction of Food Controller, Gwalior the Flying Squad of Food and Drug Administration, Gwalior had taken the search of the premises belonging to the applicant firm and found certain oil stored for sale. At the time of inspection it is alleged that one employee alleged to be the Accountant (Muneem) namely Kailash s/o Late Ramswaroop Agarwal was found present there in the oil industry concerned. After giving him necessary notice for taking sample of the oil stored for sale the necessary sample of 375 Gms. oil had been purchased the requisite price of the'sample had also been paid to the concerned employee Kailash Agarwal-applicant No.l and the sample had been divided into three parts; all the three parts were sealed properly; necessary Panchnama had been prepared; thereafter the sealed packet of the article had been sent for its chemical analysis to the Food Laboratory from where the report had been received wherein the sample of the concerning oil was found below standard. Thereafter, complaint had been filed against the applicants before the JMFC, Gwalior for the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16(1 )(a) of the PFA Act. On receipt of the information about filing of the charge-sheet the applicants came up before this Court by this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.