SEWA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE premises of Sewa Ram at JalandhaR were visited by the Food Inspector on 21.10.1986 and salt was purchased and a sample of it was sent to the Public Analyst who found in his reports dated 17-11-1986 that it contained 8.46 ppm of potassium iodate as again 25-35-ppm prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Thereafter, a complaint was instituted on 28-11-1988. Aggrieved against it the present petition has been preferred by Sewa Ram and three others. The first important contention raised is that the sample of salt was taken on 21-10-1996 and the complaint was instituted after a period of two years on 28-11-1988 and that this delay itself goes against the prosecution. In support of it the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Nebh Rai v. The State (Delhi Administration) and another, 1980(11) FAC 191 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that launching of prosecution more than two years after the sample was taken was likely to cause harassment to the accused. Any authority to the contrary has not been referred to here.

(2.) THE next important contention raised is that after the notification dated 10.11.1987 by which the 5th amendment has been incorporated in the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1987, the presence of percentage of potassium iodate has altogether been dispensed with. In this regard the learned counsel for the State argued that this amendment in the Rules is a subsequent act and it should not be considered helpful to the petitioners whose sample was taken on 21-11-1986. In reply to it, attention has been invited to Charanjit v. The State of Punjab, 1985(1) FAC 90 (Criminal Misc. No. 6696 of 1984 decided on 6-2-1985) wherein it was observed that if the amendment was of such a nature that even if the percentage of a particular ingredient was less, it was not likely to go against the interest of the consumers. In the circumstances. briefly discussed above, this petition succeeds and the proceedings pending against Sewa Ram and three others in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar are hereby quashed. Revision allowed.