JASMEET SINGH PURI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, J propose to decide the indicated petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. The epitome of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petitions and emanating from the records, is that on 12.5.2007, the Government Food Inspector (for brevity "the GFI") inspected the premises of Gaurav Sharma son of Neeraj Sharma, servant of M/s. Fortis Health World, Shop No. 4, GF-4, MGF Mega City Mall, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon (accused No. 1) and found him in possession of 20 poly packets containing 1000 grams each of Health Fields Organic Moong Dal Dhooli for public sale contained in wooden almirah (wrack) (subject matter of 1st petition, bearing C.R.M. No. M-53047 of 2007). Having completed all the codal formalities, the GFI took three samples of Moong Dal Dhooli in the presence of witnesses by giving him the notice in Form VI prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the relevant Rules"), which-were labeled and wrapped in strong thick paper. One sealed bottle alongwith memorandum was sent to Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh for analysis in a sealed box. The remaining two sealed packets of samples were deposited with the Local Health Authority (for short "the LHA"). The report of Public Analyst indicated that the label on the bottle of sample does not bear a declaration of batch number, lot number and month & year of the packing were not legible as required under Rule 32 of the relevant Rules.

(2.) Sequelly, having adopted the proper prescribed procedure and in the wake of examination of sample of Gatorade Thirst Quencher (Fierce) for public sale recovered from the possession of accused No. 1 (subject matter of 2nd petition, bearing C.R.M. No. M-53048 of 2007), it was also found misbranded. The product did not bear a batch number, lot number, symbol, colour code to indicate the product as vegetarian food, the month & year, in which, the commodity was manufactured of pre-packed, the product does not contain fruit juice and it is not labeled as synthetic, which is in violation of Rules 32 & 40(2) of the relevant rules and the product was misbranded. The petitioners-accused were the sellers of both the products and responsible as Directors of Fortis Health World of selling the misbranded food articles to the public.

(3.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant-GFI claimed that since the accused were in possession and selling the misbranded indicated food articles to the public, so, accordingly, they are liable to be prosecuted. In the background of these allegations, the GFI filed respective complaints (Annexure P1) in the prescribed form against the accused, including the petitioners, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") in the Court of CJM, Gurgaon, in the manner depicted here-in-above.