SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25-9-1991 Sukh Rao Singh, Government Food Inspector took sample of Taja iodised salt from the shop of Satish Kumar who was keeping the same in his possession for sale. The sample was taken in the presence of Doctor G. S. Sidhu and Shri Nand Lal, president of Retail Karyana Merchants Association, Jalandhar Cantt. Three packets of salt weighing 500 grams were put separately in three dry and clean plastic jars and were labelled, securely fastened and sealed as per rules. One seated sample was sent to Public Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh who after analysing the contents of the sample reported that it contained 12.08 parts per million of iodine against the minimum prescribed standard of 30 parts per million at manufacture level. The sample was thus adulterated. On receipt of the report, a complaint was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for trial of the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16, (1), (a) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint and resultant proceedings pending in the court at Jalandhar. It was pleaded that sample in this case was taken in the form of packets and was forwarded to the Public Analyst for analysis as per Annexure P-2. Taking of the sample, in the form of packets was clear violation of the Rules 14 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. It was not open to the Food Inspector to send the sample in the form of packets is the same could be tampered with. The sample should have been sent in dry and clean containers.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the petition were controverted and it was contended that there was no violation of the provisions of Rules 14 and 16 of the Act as the sample packets were put into three dry and clean jars and each jar was stoppered tightly, labelled, securely fastened and wrapped in a thick paper. Each jar was sealed at the spot with seal bearing inscription 'SSM'. There was no question of evaporation or entrance of moisture.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there had not been any compliance of Rule 14 and the sample was not properly taken. The complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Chand Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987 FAJ 17, Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab, 1987 FAJ 4988, and Nasib Chander v. State of Punjab, 1986 FAJ 387. In all these authorities it was observed that when a sample was sent to the Public Analyst in polythene bag or in a paper or cardboard packing instead of in a sealed container, the complaint was liable to be quashed on that ground. In criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 1975 State of Haryana v. Gordhan Dass. A Division Bench of this court held that, in view of the fact that the relevant Rule lays down that the sample should be sent to the Public Analyst in a dry and clean container, it is not open to the Food Inspector to send the sample in the form of a packet which is likely to be tampered with and in this case the complaint as well as the proceedings subsequent thereto were ordered to be quashed.