SANTOSH SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has sought to quash the proceeding in 3(a) C.C. No. 68 of 1985 pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rourkela.

(2.) Petitioner is the proprietor of Santosh Hotel situated at Biara Road Rourkela town. On 18-10-84 at about 10 AM the Food Inspector attached to Mobile Analytical Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, inspected the business premises of the said hotel and suspecting 'Ladu' and 'cow milk' kept for sale for human consumption to be adulterated, served statutory notice and purchased 1399 gms. Ladu and 360 mls. of cow milk, divided each of the items into 3 equal parts, kept same in dry, clean and empty glass bottles, properly packed, fastened and sealed and sent one of the sample bottles from each item to the Public Analyst for examination and on receipt of the Analyst's report that Ladu and cow milk were adulterated, launched prosecution against the petitioner and another under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after obtaining necessary consent from the Joint Director, Health Services - Local Health Authority. It is alleged that at the relevant time the petitioner was present in the hotel and was looking after the business.

(3.) Upon complaint, both the accused persons were summoned, but they did not appear. The Court then issued warrant of arrest against them and only thereafter, the present petitioner entered appearance on 8-8-1991. So far as the other accused is concerned, after warrant could not be executed against him, the case was split up. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner failed to attend the Court on two dates for which warrant of arrest was issued to apprehend him. However, on his appearance warrant was recalled. Thereafter hearing commenced in course of which the prosecution examined three witnesses and proved certain documents. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and consequently framed charge. At this stage the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present case to quash the whole proceeding.