PRITAM SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed with a prayer for quashing the complaint (Copy Annexure P/1), the proceedings in the said complaint and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 'First Class, on February 12, 1985 (Copy Annexure P/3), as per which, Pritam Singh petitioner has been ordered to be summoned for being proceeded against for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The allegations against the petitioner, as they appear from the complaint aforesaid, are that on November 14, 1984. Sh. Balbir Singh, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of Messrs United Industrial Corporation, of which Firm, the petitioner is a partner. It is alleged that the petitioner was found to be in possession of 250 sealed packets of 100 grams each of Agmark Haldi Powder for sale. The Food Inspector obtained a sample of the article. In fact, he purchased six such packets, which were converted into three equals parts. These parts were wrapped in a strong thick paper and were fastened and secured by means of a thread. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, according to whose report the sample contained maize starch as an admixture. In other words, the sample was found to be adulterated. The complaint was then filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, against the petitioner who, as already observed, was summoned.

(2.) IT is not dispute, and this fact is apparent from not only the complaint Exhibit P1, but also the report of the Public Analyst (Copy Annexure P/2) that the sample in question was sent for analysis in paper packets. The point which falls for consideration is, as to whether the preparation of the sample in a paper packing, conforms to the requirement of law/rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The matter is not res integra. This Court has held in several cases earlier that the sending of the sample of such like articles like Haldi in paper packing, as in the present case, is a violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and the same has to be treated as fatal to the prosecution. In all those cases, the complaints filed, were quashed. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision rendered by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5956/M of 1984 (Messrs Garg Masala Company, Samana v. State of Punjab 1985(1) Recent CR 221), on February 11, 1985, and later in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 934-M of 1985 (Nasib Chand, Partner of M/s Super Trading Agency, Gokal Road, Ludhiana v. The State of Punjab 1985(2) Recent CR 283), decided on September 10, 1985. The present case if fully covered by the dictum of these decisions. Accordingly, the complaint in the present case is ordered to be quashed, in so far as the petitioner, Pritam Singh, is concerned. Order accordingly.