MAHESH KUMAR KEDIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application calls in question the initiation of the proceeding under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 2(C) CC Case No. 16 of 1998 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.D., Champua.

(2.) The aforesaid case has been instituted against the petitioner and three others on the basis of a report submitted by the Food Inspector, Keonjhar. The allegation as unfolded from the prosecution report is that on 6.6.1997 the complainant inspected Himalayan Ice Cream Factory and Rabbiany Bakery at Champua, suspecting the Vanaspati (Taj Brand), Biscuits and Cakes stored in the said premises to be adulterated. After observing all the formalities the complainant took sample of the food articles. The food samples were sent for analysis. The Public Analyst in his report dated 17.7.1997 found that the sample biscuits were adulterated. He also found that the Vanaspati samples which were subjected to analysis did not confirm to the prescribed standard, therefore, it was held to be adulterated. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst prosecution was launched against the four accused persons, namely, two partners of M/s. Himalayan Ice Cream and Rabbiany Bakery, who were manufacturing the biscuits, the nominee of M/s. Kedia Vanaspati Ltd. under Section 17 (2) of the P.F.A. Act and the present petitioner, the Director of the said company.

(3.) The learned S.D.J.M., Champua basing on the prosecution report submitted by he complainant took cognizance of the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and issued process against all the accused persons including the present petitioner.