B M L GARG Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being Criminal Misc. Nos. 1864-M and 1524-M of 1986 in which the relief claimed is the same. Facts may be noted from Criminal Misc. No. 1864-M of 1986.

(2.) At the Milk Bar at Bus Stand at Chandigarh, the Food Inspector took sample of flavoured milk after observing all due formalities. The sample sent to the Public Analyst revealed the result that milk solid fats were 4.2 per cent against the prescribed standard 1.5 per cent and milk solids non-fat were 7.2 per cent against the minimum prescribed 9 per cent. Thus, the sample being deficient in milk solids non-fat, the Food Inspector launched prosecution against the retailer vendor. The first petitioner, who is the General Manager of the Milk Plant, Hoshiarpur, belonging to the Punjab Dairy Development Corporation and the retailer dealer, the employee of the Corporation, were sent up for trial. In availing of the concession under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the accused required to have the second sample, kept by the Local Health Authority, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The Director of the Central Food Laboratory gave a report which was quite divergent from the one given by the Public Analyst. According to the Director's report milk solid fats were found only 2 per cent and milk solids non-fat 11.8 per cent i.e., above the prescribed standard. This report, when brought on the record, gave an occasion to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings before the trial Magistrate by means of approaching this Court under S.482 of the Cr. P.C. Four points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They are noticed and dealt with hereafter.

(3.) The first point is regarding the non-stirring of the milk and its non-mention in the complaint. This argument was based on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in State v. Inder Singh, (1984) 1 FAC 166 and State v. Ram Dhan Singh, (1983) 1 FAC 199. These Division Bench cases have after been considered by this Court in State of Haryana' v. Jagan Nath. Criminal Appeal No. 502-DB of 1984 decided on 30-5-1986*in which it has been held that if there is no mention in a complaint about the stirring of milk before taking samples, then that fact by itself does not tell on the competency of the complaint or the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance thereof. The omission in the complaint would have to be viewed in the light of the evidence recorded and it has been left open to the Court to test the credibility of the Food Inspector whether or not he mentions that stirring, before hand, of the milk had taken place. Thus, on this ground, neither the complaint nor the proceedings can be quashed as being without jurisdiction. The petitioners would be left to make use of the omission at the appropriate time at the trial. * Reported in (1986) 2 Chand LR (Cri) 479.