SARDARI LAL AND CO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Sardari Lai and Co. , EG 864 Gobind Garh, Jullundur, which is a partnership concern, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. for quashing the criminal complaint State v. Parminder Singh son of Shanker Singh. Mini General Store, opposite Khalsa High School, Rahimpur, Hoshiarpur and (2) M/s. Sardari Lal and Co. EG 864 Gobind Garh. Jullundur, under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Dr. Niranjan Singh, Food Inspector, purchased six packets of Garam Masala from Shri Parminder Singh on 26-8-1981. He divided these packets into three equal parts and made them into separate parcels. In due course, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab and on receipt of a report from him that the sample was adulterated. Dr. Niranjan Singh filed a complaint in which the petitioner was shown as respondent No. 2. The complaint was registered and by order dated 21-12-1981, the learned Magistrate ordered that the accused be summoned for 16-1-1982. Parminder Singh accused appeared in Court on 16-1-1982. The case was adjourned for the service of the other accused (petitioner) to 24-2-1982. Similarly, by order dated 25-5-1982, summons were issued against the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that no evidence was recorded before summoning the petitioner as an accused. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed this petition,

(3.) MR. D. S. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, hag argued that (1) Dr. Niranjan Singh was not authorised to institute the prosecution against the accused because there was no sanction to launch the prosecution and the Court could not take cognizance of the offence under Section 20 of the Act without there being a proper and valid complaint by a person authorised and entitled in law to institute such a complaint, (2) that no standard of purity for Garam Masala has been prescribed under the Act or the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'rules') and therefore, Garam Masala cannot be said to have been adulterated. The Central Government has framed draft rules and they have prescribed the standard of purity for the Garam Masala. However, these rules have not been legally framed yet; and (3) there was n0 vaild complaint filed against the petitioner as there is no mention in the complaint that the petitioner has in any manner violated the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The name or role of the petitioner does not find mention in whole body of the complaint. Only in the heading, the name of the petitioner has been added to indicate that it has been arraigned as an accused. Even in the prayer clause, there is no averment that any action be taken against the petitioner whereas it has been specifically mentioned therein that Parminder Singh has committed an offence under the Act and action may be taken against him.