RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Kumar has come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Magistrate at Fatehabad.

(2.) THE petitioner was tried for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the ground that a sample of food had been taken by the Government Food Inspector on September 27,1980, which was mis -branded. He was convicted for that offence and sentenced to 6 months R.I and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - on appeal, this judgment and order was set aside and retrial was ordered on the basis that proper procedure had not been adopted. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings on the basis that there was delay in finalisation of the criminal proceedings. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel asked for taking additional plea that the item from which sample was drawn was infact not fool and as such no prosecution could be launched. The prayer of the counsel to argue this point was allowed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution allegations, Mr. RR Jindal, Food Inspector had inspected the liquor vend of the petitioner and after giving a notice to take sample, he purchased three bottles by paying Rs. 36/ -. They were a duly sealed and one of the same was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. On receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the prosecution was IF launched. The learned counsel has urged that the alcohal was not covered by the Act as it was not a food an no standard for the same had been fixed under the Act. Reliance is place on two judgments Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana 1990(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 504 (Pb. & Hry.) and Tar Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab 1956(1) PLR 686. In both the cases cited above, it has been held that Alcohal beverages are not food. No standard has been fixed with respect to these items. In Krishan Lal' s, case (supra) it was also held that with respect to adulteration in Alcohal, note can only be taken under the Excise Act. I accept the argument of the learned counsel.