SURINDER NATH SOOD Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, Surinder Nath Sood, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Ss. 7(ii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 32(e) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon by the CJM, Chandigarh.

(2.) Annexure P2 is the copy of the criminal complaint dated 27-11-2000, filed by the Chandigarh Administration, against the accused-petitioner, Narinder Nath Sood, about the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules. It has been alleged in the criminal complaint that on 31-7-2000 at 11 a.m., Sh. M. K. Sharma, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of Surindra Traders, Sector 22C. Chandigarh, belonging to accused, Surinder Nath Sood, and found him in possession of about 20 packets of 500 gms each of "Suji Rusk" for public sale in his shop and the Food Inspector demanded sample of Suji Rusk for analysis and examination from the accused, by giving him necessary Notice. It was further alleged that at that time, the Food Inspector had associated Anil Kumar as a witness to watch the process of sampling. It was alleged that the Food Inspector purchased 3 packets of 500 gms each of Suji Rusk from the accused for analysis, against cash payment and thereafter those packets were duly sealed and a spot memo was also prepared by the Food Inspector with regard to the entire proceedings. It was alleged that one sealed part of the sample along with a copy of memo on Form VII was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis and examination, in a sealed packet by hand, under intimation to the local Health Authority, UT, Chandigarh, and a copy of the memo in Form VII, bearing the seal impression was separately sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed envelope, while the remaining 2 sealed parts/packets of the sample, along with 2 copies of memo in Form VII were deposited with the local Health Authority, UT, Chandigarh, in a sealed cover, for safe custody. It was alleged that the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, was received through local Health Authority, UT, Chandigarh, according to which "Batch No. and month of year of manufacturing/packing, are not mentioned/printed on the label of the sample, as required under Clauses (e) and (f) respectively of Rule 32 of the Rules. Therefore, the same has been found to be mis-branded". It was alleged that since the accused, Surinder Nath Sood,possessed mis-branded Suji Rusk for public sale, in his shop, he had committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the accused-petitioner was summoned by the learned CJM. Aggrieved against the same, the accused-petitioner, Surinder Nath Sood, has filed the present petition, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and the subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, inter alia on the ground that Rule 32 of the Rules had been declared as ultra vires, being beyond the rule making power by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1972 FAC 1 : (1971 Cri LJ 1290) and the same had been followed by this Court in various authorities. It was further alleged that in the present case, the article had remained in the same condition as it was supplied to the dealer by the manufacturer and there was no allegation that the same was tampered with or was not properly stored or that it was not in the same condition, when it was sold to the Food Inspector and as such the proceedings against the accused-petitioner, who was a dealer, were liable to be quashed on this ground as well, as the said packets of Suji Rusk were manufactured by Magan Standard Bakery, Delhi. It was alleged that the manufacturer, Magan Standard Bakery, had not been impleaded as accused in the present complaint and on this ground as well, the present proceedings against the accused-petitioner were liable to be quashed.