JEET KUMAR ANAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relates to quashment of complaint (Annexure P-1), filed by Dhani Ram, Government Food Inspector, as well as subsequent proceedings taken thereunder, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEF facts, as emerge, from the complaint (Annexure P-1 ) are that all 31-8-1988, Dr. Roop Lal with Dr. Parmodh Chadha went to the shop of the petitioner situated at Mandi Road, Jalandhar City. The petitioner was found present there and he had kept about 35 kgs. of Haldi powder in his shop for sale for human consumption. Dr. Roop Lal purchased 600 grams of Haldi powder from the petitioner on payment of Rs. 6/-. The Haldi powder so purchased was divided into three equal parts, and was put into three dry and clean bottles. Each sample bottle was labelled, stopped and wrapped in a strong thick paper and secured by means of strong twine. A paper slip duly signed by Local Health Authority bearing serial No. 37669 was pasted on each sample bottle and the said bottle was again fastened by means of strong twine. Each sample bottle was sealed with the seal bearing monogram RL at six distinct points. The signature of the petitioner were obtained on sample bottles partly on the slip and partly on the wrapper paper. One such sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst with sealed cover along with form VII bearing the seal impression of the seal used. The remaining two sample bottles along with two copies of memo on form No. VII were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Jalandhar on the same day. Report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample contained five dead insects and two excreta. Thereafter, the complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was filed against the petitioner. Counsel for the parties were heard.

(3.) AS held in Dhanraj's case, 1972 FAC 335, sub-clause (f) of section 2(1) of the Act was construed as follows :-