GLAXO INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is so preferred by the petitioner Glaxo India Limited (Accused No.2) U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. read with Art. 227 of the Constitution particularly being aggrieved by the order dtd 4.3.94 passed in CR 1002/92 by the learned SDJM, Hojai, Sankardebnagar by virtue of which after hearing the parties, the learned Court below rejected the prayer so made by the accused for discharging them rather directed framing charge U/s. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Herein after referred to as the Act)

(2.) Heard Mr.D.K Bhattacharjee, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner- accused and Mr. J.Singh, the learned PP Assam.

(3.) The short history of the case is that the Food Inspector, Hojai, Nagaan on 13.7.92 visited the premises of M/s. Adhir Kr. dey Grocery shop situtated at Netaji Road and disclosing his identy, collected sample of "Minit Milk " bearing code and SI No. TD-92/ 027 from Shri Adhir Kumar Dey, Accused No. 1, the proprietor off the said Grocery Shop and the said Minit Milk was so purchased by Shri Adhir Kumar Dey from Glaxo India Limited Company, Samples of which were so collected strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the part of the sample in sealed cover was sent to the Public Analyst, Government of Assam for analysis under the provisions of Rule 17 of the Act and after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst on 26.8.92 opining the same to be misbranded, sanction was obtained and the prosecution case was launched by filing prosecution report on the basis of which CR 1002/92 got registered and U/s. 204 Cr.P.C. Shri Adhir Kumar Dey as accused No.1 and the Glaxo India Limited, Guwahati Shillong Road, Dispur as accused No.2 were summoned as to face the trial. It further transpires that the said food Indpector Shri T.Das was also examined before charge and after that when a date was fixed up for hearing on the point of charge on behalf of the accused persons it was submitted that the accused persons rather be discharged as according to the accused persons no case is made out as to proceed against them under the Act though the learned Court below after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials as to proceed against them and hence directed framing of charge as detailed above against the accused persons, one of them figuring here as petitioner, assigning reasons as detailed in the impugned order against which this Criminal Revision is filed.