LIPTON INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P 1) under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as amended by Act No. 34 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and consequent proceedings taken thereunder.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from the complaint, Annexure P 1, are that on 7th June, 1988, at 11 A.M. Dr. Harish Chander, exercising powers of Food Inspector along with Dr. Rakesh Goyal went to the shop of M/s. Sham Lal and Sons, Karyana Merchant, Bargari Road, Bathinda. After disclosing his identity he purchased three packets each weighing 250 grams of New Richbur tea, meant for sale, for Rs. 39/ - manufactured by Lipton India Ltd. 9 Weston Street Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the manufacturer) as sample, for analysis. The aforesaid packets were purchased by the petitioner from M/s. Sudagar Mal Des Raj Grain Market, Kotkapura vide bill No. (sic) dated 1 -4 -1988. The sample packets were duly labelled and wrapped. Paper slip of the local Health Authority was pasted on the Wrapper and the samples were secured with strong twine. The sample packets were then duly seated and the signatures of the vendors were also obtained on the wrapper of each part of the same. One part of the sample with a copy of memorandum was sent to the public analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh in a sealed container through special messenger along with specific impression of the seal used and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority, Faridkot with seals intact. The report of Punjab Analyst reveals that the contents of sample contained one iron nail 2.7 cms in length and 2481 -PPM by mass. The Food Inspector then filed complaint against Sham Lal seller dealer as well as the manufacturer. The present petition has been filed only by the manufacturer.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, it was mainly contended that as per report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, copy whereof is at Annexure P3, no iron nail and particles were found in the sample of tea sent for analysis; that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, under sub -Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act suspersedes the report of the public Analyst and on this basis it was contended that present complaint Annexure P1 filed on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, Annexure P2, is liable to be quashed.