AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Amarjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated 7.11.2002 (Annexure P-2) filed against him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and all the subsequent proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 28.1.2000, the Food Inspector along with the District Health Officer had inspected the business premises of the petitioner and took a sample of Bharat Salt from the premises of the petitioner for analysis. As per report of the Public Analyst dated 29.2.2000, which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-1, the said sample was found to be misbranded as in his opinion, "this product has been labelled as REFINED IODISED SALT PURE FREE FLOWING with ingredients permitted anticaking and free flowing agent whereas under the provisions of Rule 43 of P.F.A. Rules, 1955, label of salt containing added anticaking agent should not contain any word which might imply that the food is PURE."

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the sample in question was misbranded by the Public Analyst on the opinion that under the provisions of Rule 43 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the label of salt containing added anticaking agent should not contain any word which might imply that the food is pure. The said opinion of the Public Analyst does not apply to the facts of the case as sub-rule (5) of Rule 43 of the Rules exempts the application of Rule as under :-