JAYANTILAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed the present application under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of criminal proceedings of Criminal Case no. 867/2013 pending before the Court of JMFC, Badnawar, District -? Dhar.

(2.) The applicant no. 1 is carrying on a business of selling grocery at village Bhensola, Tehsil -? Badnawar, District -? Dhar. Applicant no. 2 is also a businessman. On 3/12/2012, the food inspector, during his regular visit at about 1 O'clock at noon, came at village Bhensola and visited the shop of applicant no. 1 and during inspection, he took one tea bag of Lalji Gold CTC Leaf Tea -? 250 grams for checking the standard and paid Rs. 50/- as price to the said shopkeeper and did the sampling work at his shop and prepared a panchanama before the witnesses. Applicant no. 1 informed that he had purchased the said tea bag from applicant no. 2, therefore, the respondent issued a notice to the applicants demanding particulars of the firm and names of firm proprietor. The applicants accordingly, supplied necessary information to the food inspector. The tea bag was sent to the food laboratory, Bhopal and a report was received stating that the product is misbranded. On this report, the respondent filed a complaint against the applicants in the Court of JMFC, Badnawar on 05/09/2013. The Court of JMFC, Badnawar registered the criminal case no. 867/2013 against the applicants. The applicants thereafter, moved an application before the trial Court for dismissal of the said complaint on the ground that after coming into force of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 ( in short 'the Act'), the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and tried the case. Learned Judge, vide order dated 03/10/2018, has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed the present application before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that in view of the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the Court of JMFC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As per the said section, an officer, not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the District will be acted as adjudicating officer for adjudication in the matter and complete procedure has been provided under the said Act for adjudication. He further relied upon the section 52 of the Act stating that the breach of any provision of this Act provides only for penalty, which may extend to Rs. 3 lacs. Thus, there is no jail sentence provided under the Act. In such circumstances, he submits that the present application deserves to be allowed.