ANNAPURNA AGENCY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Cr, P.C.') the petitioners have made prayer to quash the order dated 13.6.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') as well as the criminal proceeding in 2(c) C.C. No.18 of 2002 now pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C. Bhawanipatna.

(2.) The criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioners and another upon receipt of prosecution report submitted by the Food Inspector, Kalahandi. It appears that the Food Inspector inspected the Wholesale Agency of co-accused Prakash Jam who figures as accused No.1. On verification the Food Inspector suspected Everest brand 'Turmeric Powder', 'Chilly Powder', and 'Sabji Masala' manufactured by the petitioner in CRLMC No.796 of 2004 who figures as accused No.3 and supplied to the accused no.1 by the petitioner in CRLMC No.255 of 2004 who figures as accused no.2 to be adulterated. He made statutory purchase of packages of each of the items in packed condition and sent sample package of each of the items to the Public Analyst for analysis. In the report of the Public Analyst it was stated that Everest 'Sabaji Masala' was adulterer as its quality fell below the prescribed standard inasmuch as edible common salt found therein was 8.7% by weight on dry basis. After observing the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder the Food Inspector submitted prosecution report upon which cognizance of offence as stated supra was taken.

(3.) Though several contentions have been raised in the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order of taking cognizance as well as the criminal proceeding, in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confined his argument to the contention that as no standard has been prescribed under Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') for 'Sabji Masala', there was no basis for the Public Analyst to report that 'Sabji Masala' purchased from the shop of accused No.1 was adulterated by arbitrarily treating 'Sabji Masala' as 'Curry Powder'. It was submitted that the petitioners as well as accused No.1 never intended 'Sabji Masala' purchased by the Food Inspector to be treated as 'Curry Powder'. On the other hand, there is conspicuous declaration on the packages of 'Sabji Masala' to the effect that it was "Not ,A Curry Powder". In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decisions in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Food Inspector and another; M.V. Krihna Nambissan v. State of Kerala; Bipin Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr. and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal. In reply, learned counsel for the State submitted that cognizance of offence having been taken on the basis of report of the Public Analyst to the effect that Everest brand 'Sabji Masala' manufactured by accused No.3, supplied by accused No.2 and sold by accused No.1 was adulterated, being not in conformity with the prescribed specifications under Appendix-B of the Rules for 'Curry Powder' as it contained 8.7% of edible common salt as against specification to the effect that Curry Powder should not contain more than 5.0% of common salt, there is no scope to interfere with the criminal proceeding.