CHINT RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners pray for quashing of the charge framed under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. When this application was placed before Jindra Lal, J. , the learned Judge, in view of his order of reference in Criminal Writ No. 6 of 1968, M/s. J. B. Fruit Products (Registered) v. Municipal Committee, Jullundur, ordered that this case be also heard by a Full Bench. By order of my Lord the Chief Justice this case has now been placed for hearing before a Full Bench. The necessity of placing this case before a Full Bench arose because the correctness of the decision in Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 1961 (Punj), State v. Raj Kumar, fell for consideration.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1, Chint Ram, is the proprietor of Messrs High Land Fyne Fruit and Food Stuffs, Chowk Bharat Nagar, Model Town Road, Ludhiana. He is carrying on the business of manufacturing fruit products under a licence obtained from the Government of India under the Fruit Products Order, 1955. This Order was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955 ). Petitioner No. 2 is an employee and agent of petitioner No. 1 Food Inspector, Jullundur, took samples of table sauce manufactured by the petitioner and called for a report from the Public Analyst. The report was that the table sauce was found to be coloured with coal-tar dye. The Food Inspector on that basis filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. At the hearing the petitioners objected that they could not be prosecuted under the said provision in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 1961, D/-29-10-62 (Punj ). They prayed that they be discharged. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 16th of October, 1969, held that "there was not enough ground to discharge the accused altogether", and thereafter proceeded to frame the charge. With regard to the decision of this Court in Raj Kumar's case, Criminal appeal No. 996 of 1961, D/- 29-10-1962 (Punj) the learned Magistrate made the following observations:-

(3.) TO say the least, the Magistrate was not all justified in ignoring the High Court judgment and proceeding to frame charge against the accused, when, the High Court judgment in unmistakable terms in similar circumstances held that no charge can be framed for violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in case the product was in conformity with the specifications laid down in the Fruit Products Order.