S.S. BRAR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks quashing of complaint under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). Case set out in the complaint is that on 27.1.1999, sample of Vanaspati Ghee was taken from M/s. Daljeet Sales Corporation in the form of three flexible packs of one litre each of Angan Vanaspati in the same sealed condition. The said packs were wrapped in a thick strong paper separately and one part of the sample was sent to public analyst who in his report opined that free fatty acid was 0.34% against maximum prescribed standard of 0.25%.

(2.) IT is contended that the petitioner who was Quality Control Manager of M/s. Suraj Solvent and Vanaspati Industries Limited could not be proceeded against as the Company was not arraigned as accused. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madras v. C.V. Parekh and others, AIR 1971 SC 447. It is also contended that taking of the sample in packed condition and putting the same in a wrapper was violative of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') as interpreted by Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raman Kumar, 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 772 and on this ground alone, proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and am unable to accept the contentions on behalf of the petitioner. The view taken in C.V. Parekh (supra), was explained in Sheoratan Agarwal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1985(1) RCR(Criminal) 53 (SC) : AIR 1984 SC 1824 and also in Anil Handa v. Indian Acrylic Limited, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 1 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 145. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is, thus, rejected.