PURANMAL BADRILAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments heard. The undisputed facts of the case are as under : - That on 21-8-91 one Food Inspector Shri B. S. Tomar, collected sample of iodized salt for analysis from petitioner No. 2. On being analyzed by the Public Analyst, it was found adulterated on the point that in place of 15 ppm iodine there was only 9.81 ppm iodine. On this ground the Food Inspector filed one complaint before CJM, Guna. Presently which is pending at Criminal Case No. 458/92 against four accused persons (1) petitioner No. 1 in the capacity of vendor (2) petitioner No. 1 in the capacity of distributor and (3 & 4) respondent No. 2 & 3 as manufacturer.

(2.) That despite several efforts made, during the period of 10-12 years, the respondent No. 3 and 4 could not be traced out. Then vide order dated 27-8-2004, the learned Magistrate declared respondent No.3 and 4 as absconded and framed charges against the petitioners on dated 14-10-2004 for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) That impugning the order dated 27-8-04 and dated 14-10-04 the present petitioners filed one criminal revision No. 255/04. During pendency of revision, it was informed on affidavit that one Shankarlal who was Managing Director of the company, has died and thereafter company has been closed. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that in absence of the manufacturer, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. For enquiry and reconsideration on these two points, while allowing the revision and quashing the charge, case was demanded with the following observations - (Vernacular matter is omitted - Ed.) Being aggrieved with order dated 19-7-2006, the present petition is for invoking the inherent powers of this Court, praying therein to set aside the impugned order as well as to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.