SANJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P-2.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the complainant Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner-accused on April 30, 1994, at 11 A.M. and took a sample of curd of cow milk from his shop as per the Rules. The sample was divided into three parts. Preservative was added and sample bottles were duly sealed. One such bottle was sent along with Four-VII to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis, and remaining two sample bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority on May 1, 1994. On analysis the Analyst found that the sample contained milk fat 6.2 per cent and milk solids not fat 6.5 per cent. Thus, it was deficient in the percentage of milk solids not fat. The complaint was lodged in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on June 6, 1994. On June 15, 1994, the accused-petitioner submitted a petition under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short, the Act). On that very day this petition was decided and the Court ordered the concerned Authority to produce another bottle of sample, to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for re-analysis. The case was adjourned to October 3, 1994. The petitioner was also directed to deposit the requisite fee of Rs. 40/- and to produce packing material. On October 3, 1994, petitioner-accused was not present in the Court. He sought exemption due to illness and the case was adjourned to December 9, 1994. On this date also the packing material was not supplied for sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory. On this date the Court passed the order that the case be tried as a warrant case and it was adjourned to March 24, 1995, for pre-charge evidence. On March 20, 1995, the petitioner-accused filed this petition in this Court and obtained stay order.

(3.) THE complainant has filed reply to the petition and has controverted the allegations made therein. Relying on Full Bench decision of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 P.L.R. 433 it is averred that even if in the sample milk fat is in excess of the standard and it is deficient in milk solids not fat, on this basis alone the complaint cannot be quashed, because even then offence under Section 7/16 of the Act is prima facie made out and accused is liable to be convicted on the basis of such a report. It is also contended that no doubt the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(2) of the Act for sending second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, but on that very day his petition was allowed. He was to perform certain duties like depositing the fees and submitting the packing material before the Court. The petitioner failed to discharge these duties and before second sample could be sent to the Central Food Laboratory the petitioner filed this Crl. Misc. petition and obtained stay order on March 21, 1995. Hence he cannot raise this objection now.