ONKARLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance of offence under section 7/16(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the accused petitioner.

(2.) The brief history of the case is that Shri G.K. Shrivastava, Food Inspector, Dhar took a sample of turmaric powder after giving notice from one Deoram Joshi. After observing the formalities of notice and payment of price a panchnama for the same was prepared. The petitioner Onkarlal was also among the person who witnessed the proceedings and signed the panchnama. Thereafter, the sample was sent to public Analyst who found it to be substandard. As such after obtaining the permission from Local Authority and issuing the notice to Deoram Joshi a complaint under Section 7(i)(iii)/16(1-A)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was filed against Deoram Joshi. During proceedings the Food Inspector, G.K. Shrivastava was examined. He admitted during cross-examination that Onkarlal (petitioner) was present at the time of preparation of Panchnama. It was also admitted that Deoram Joshi disclosed at the time of taking of the sample that the turmaric powder was purchased from Onkarlal, present accused (petitioner). On the basis of this evidence of Food Inspector learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner Onkarlal vide order dated 22.4.1987. The petitioner made appearance before the Court. The Food Inspector was again subjected to cross-examine. Thereafter charge under section 7/16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed against the accused-petitioner. He filed revision against, framing of charge. The 1st AddI. Sessions Judge, Dhar dismissed the revision vide order dated 23.3.1993, passed in Criminal Revision No. 144/9 1. Hence, this petition for quashing the issuance of process including the charge against the accused-petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Food Inspector took the sample from Deoram Joshi on 30th Dec. 1984. This was disclosed by Doeram on that very day that he purchased turmaric powder from accused (petitioner) and same has been mentioned in the last portion of the panchnama. The petitioner, Onkar lal has signed as a witness, but nothing was done against Onkar Lal by the Food Inspector and therefore, it was not proper to have taken the cognizance after a lapse of nearly three years i.e. on 22.4.1987. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that had the Food Inspector proceeded against him he could demonstrate it to the Local Authority that he is not guilt and could have persuaded him not to accord sanction from the prosecutions. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no sanction has been accorded under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore the accused (petitioner) could not be prosecuted, and as such taking of the cognizance without observing such formalities is bad in law.