PARDEEP SINGH S Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner are running a Karyana shop in village Hambran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. On 29th April, 1981 the Food inspector took sample weighing 450 grams of chilly powder from a sealed packet of one kilogram, and divided the same into three equal parts, which were also sealed, The lable of sealed packing read "Lion Brand -Mirch Puran Soap Factory, Talab Bazar, Ludhiana." The sample taken by Food Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst who found the same adulterated. After the receipt of report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner, which is pending in the Court of Mr. D.S. Chatha, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The petitioner have filed the present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the complaint filed against them be quashed.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sample was not taken by the Food Inspector in the manner provided in Rule 22 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, with the result that the complaint made under the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are liable to be quashed. In my opinion, this contention must prevail.

(3.) RULE 22 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Reads "22 -A. Content of one or more similar sealed containers having identical labels to constitute the quantity of a food sample. "Where food is sold or stocked for sale or for distribution in sealed containers having identical label declaration, the contents of one or more or such containers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 shall be treated to be a part of the sample." It was held in Daljit Wig v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLR (Pb. and Har.) 166, that where food is saled in a sealed container, the sealed container as such must be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and if the contents are taken out from the sealed container there would be a clear violation of the mode prescribed for taking the samples for analysis. It was further held that if the samples are not sent in the prescribed mode, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the analysis of the material which had been taken out of the sealed containers. A similar view was taken in Amar Nath v. State of Punjab, 1981 C.C. Cases 251 (P&H), where in a sample of sealed packet of haldi powder was taken after opening them. It was held that the taking of sample was violative of Rule 22 -A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules' with the result that the proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were liable to be quashed. The ratio of these authorities is applicable to the instant case. The complaint made and proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are, therefore, liable to be quashed.