KESHARICHAND AND PUSURAJ, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGER Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the Petitioner has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) for quashing the order of cognizance of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) for contravention of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case revealed from the prosecution report filed by a Food Inspector is that opposite parties 2 and 3 are dealers of grocery articles of village Sainkula (Barapada), P.S. Ramachandrapur of Keonjhar district, whereas, the Petitioner is a wholesale grocery dealer of malgodown, Cuttack. On 13 -11 -1984 the Food Inspector inspected the grocery shop of opposite parties 2 and 3 and suspected that Postak exhibited for sale in the shop for human consumption was adulterated. Therefore, after complying with necessary formalities, he purchased Postak and sent the sample for chemical analysis by the Public Analyst of the Government of Orissa. The Public Analyst reported on 14 -11 -1984 that the sample Postak was adulterated. Opposite parties 2 and 3, had disclosed before the Food Inspector that Postak had been purchased from the Petitioner. Therefore, after close of investigation the Food Inspector submitted prosecution report not only against opposite parties 2 and 3 but also against the Petitioner on the basis of which the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandapur took cognizance for the offence already referred to above.

(3.) THE guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing a criminal proceeding have been firmly established by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866. The guidelines generally are: