RAKESH KUMARS Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the complaint under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (Act for short) pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, against the petitioners. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.5.1988 Food Inspector Balbir Singh inspected the premises of the petitioners and found them having in their possession about 10 kilograms of Maize Atta for sale. A sample of Maiza Atta was purchased for Rs. 2/ - which was divided into three equal parts and was duly sealed. One of the sample bottles was sent to Public Analyst, Chandigarh who vide his report Annexure P/2 found that the sample contained 10 living weevils and 15 living meal worms. On the basis of this report complaint was filed against the petitioners for selling adulterated Maize Atta.

(2.) THE petitioner assailed the complaint on the grounds that the complaint was not filed by duly authorised person. Even the appointment of Food Inspector who took sample in the instant case was not in accordance with law. The complaint could be tried only by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh who was specifically authorised to try cases under the Act. On merits it was alleged that when the sample was taken it was not a season for the sale of Maize Atta. The same was laying in the store and was not meant for sale. It was further contended that there was no standard provided in law for Maize Atta.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Although quashing of the complaint was sought on numerous grounds mentioned in the petition, but at the time of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner confined himself only to ground No. (viii). He contended that the sample was taken in the month of May when it was not a season for selling Maize Atta and this article was lying in the store. He further urged that the sample was analysed after 25 days of its seizure and it was likely the Maize Atta was infested with the insects during that period. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Ram Parkash v. The State of Punjab, 1982 Criminal Law Times 46, wherein it was held : - " That the sample remained un -examined and un -analysed for about 25 days. there is nothing unlikely in the sample having been infested with insects during that period. Dr. Gulati Food Inspector admitted that at the time he purchased the sample it was not infested with insects. This admission by the Food Inspector reinforces the argument of the learned counsel that the sample got infested with insects later and was not infested at the time when it was purchased."