LALJI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings with respect to criminal case No.1515 of 2005 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Gwalior.

(2.) As per petitioners, on 23.4.2005 complainant Food Inspector after notice took sample of Ghee from the petitioners' firm Gupta Traders,Deedwana Oli,Lashker, Gwalior. That sample was sent to Public Analyst,Bhopal for analysis and as per report of Public Analyst,Bhopal, 'Annexure the sample was found adulterated. Then case was filed in the court and the notice was issued to the present petitioners under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act. Present applicant has filed one application under Section 13(2) of the Act for again analysing sample. Application was allowed and sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory. Report is annexure 'B.' As per that report of Central Food Laboratory, the sample of ghee was not found adulterated. As per that report, sample was found mis branded. In this way, on the basis of that report, prima facie no case made out against present petitioners. Therefore, further pro- ceedings are to be quashed.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per report Annexure'B' of Central Food Laboratory, Ghee was not found adulterated and sample was found misbranded. As per Rule 32 batch number and date of manufacturing was not mentioned on the sample contained. In notice form 6 which was issued on spot, the complainant has mentioned that the sampled ghee was manufactured in April, 2005 and batch number is 1. That form is Annexure'c' 'D'. In the memorandum form 7 Annexure 'E',which was send to public analyst, the complainant has mentioned that the ghee was manufactured in April. 2005 and batch number is 1. As per report Annexure 'C, it is further specific that public analyst has also mentioned at the time of analysing the sampled ghee that batch number is 1 and date of manufacture is April, 2005. In panchnama Annexure 'F', same batch number and manufacturing date has been mentioned on spot. In this Way, it is apparent that in the sample taken on spot, manufacturing date of sample and batch number was mentioned. Therefore, opinion of CFL in which it is stated that the sample was mis branded is liable to be ignored. It is further contended that as per permission order Annexure 'G' permission for prosecution is given with respect of adulteration only. Hence, proceedings are liable to be quashed.