K BHATTACHARYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition is for invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr. PC for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the complaint bearing Case No. 1/03 filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Gohad, Distt. Bhind for the offence punishable under Section 7 (ii) and (iii) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii)of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') alleging the breach of Rule 32 (c) (i) and the Rule 50 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ).

(2.) THE facts in brief as admitted by both the parties during the course of arguments, are that one private complaint dated 3rd January, 2003 has been filed against the petitioners, Cadbury India Limited the petitioner No. 8 and its directors, Managers the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 for aforementioned offences, putting allegations against them that one A. K. Bhadoria, duly authorized Food inspector inspected the establishment of petitioner No. 8 situated at Malanpur, distt. Bhind. He collected samples of its two products namely :- (1) "milk treat" and (2) "eclairs". Both of these samples were sent for Analysis and vide report of Public Analyst, dated 24th April, 2001, the sample of "eclairs" was found as per standards prescribed, but the sample of "milk treat" was opined as misbranded as per Rule 32-C (1) of the Rules. It was also found that no valid licence was available with the petitioners at the time of inspection. When the petitioners were summoned by the Trial Court, two applications were moved by them one under Section 245 (2) of Cr. PC and second under Section 17 (1) of the act praying therein to discharge the petitioners. Vide order dated 29th June, 2004 both the applications were rejected by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, criminal Revision No. 144/04 was preferred but the same has also been dismissed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind vide order dated 8th September, 2005. Thereafter, the instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

(3.) SHRI A. K. Chitale, learned Sr. Advocate has assailed the prosecution on the following grounds:- (i) that, the Rule 32 (c) (1) of the Rules, has been added on 20th november, 2000 vide GSR No. 877 (3), which came into force on 20th November, 2001 and onwards. In view of this, at the time of inspection or date of incident that is on 11th April, 2001, this rule was not in force. Hence, the prosecution for the alleged breach of this rule is erroneous. In support Shri Chitale has drawn attention on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of M. P. , (2004) 8 SCC 770 (Para 9 ). It is further submitted by shri Chitale in this regard, that prior to this amendment, Rule 32-C of the Rules was in existence and according to this rule the name and complete address of the manufacturer, importer, vendor or packer on the product along with manufacturing unit was not required. Vide aforementioned amendment, it has been made ' obligatory on the manufacturer to mention the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit, if it is located at different place and also that in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler mentioning the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be. (ii) While highlighting Annexure I (Colly) and Annexure J. Shri chitale has submitted that the licence was already renewed upto 31st March, 2001, which was subsequently renewed on 15th March, 2001 for a period upto 31-3-2002. In view of this, the allegation about having no valid licence is also erroneous. It is further submitted by him, that the allegations mentioned in Clauses B to F of Para 5 of the complaint are with regard to some irregularities in the licensing procedure. He has submitted that once the licence was renewed, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for such irregularities. In view of all, it is submitted by him that the allegation with regard to the charge under Rule 32-C (1) and Rule 50 are groundless and as observed by the Apex Court in (1)Ajay Mitra Vs. State of M. P. and others, (2003) SCC 11 Paras 19 and 20 and (2)Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 Paragraphs 11 to 13, this Court can quash the complaint under its inherent powers. (iii) That, in alternative he has submitted that vide Annexure K, as per the provisions of Rule 12-B read with Section 17, Mr. A. J. Philip, General Manager of the petitioner No. 8, was nominated to be in-charge and responsible to the company for its conduct of business about its factory situated at Malanpur and the same was communicated to the Competent Authority. The round seal affixed on the office of the Competent Authority, indicates that it was received by the authority on 27th June, 1999. On this basis, except petitioner Nos. 7 and 8, the complaint ought to be quashed about petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, as there appears no specific averments in the complaint with regard to their involvement in the offence. In support, he has drawn attention on the following judgments of the apex Court in:- (1) R. Banerjee and others Vs. H. D. Dubey, (1992)2 SCC 552; (2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan rohtabi, (1983) 1 SCC 1 and; (3) Pepsi Foods Ltd. and others Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749.