OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is being prosecuted under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk. It was found to be deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of 3.5 per cent by the public analyst vide his report dated 26th December, 1984. In exercise of his right under Section 13(2) of the Act the petitioner bad requested for the analysis of the second sample vide his application dated 11th February 1935 ail as a result of that, the Director Central Food Laboratory. Gaziabad, vide his report dated 19th March, 1985, intimated the Court that the said sample could not be analysed as the same had decomposed. The court sent the third sample to the Director for the same purpose. The Director again intimated vide, his report dated 9th December, 1985, that the said sample was also unit for analysis as it stood decomposed. In spite of these two latter mentioned reports which undisputably superseded the earlier one dated 26th December, 1984 by the public analyst, the court chose to frame the charge against the petitioner and to continue the proceedings.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the continuation of the proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. As has been indicated earlier, in the face of the latter two reports by the Director Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, the earlier report of the public analyst dated 29th December, 1984, was of no consequence and could not be treated even prima facie as evidence of adulteration the milk in question. In the absence of any such adulteration, the petitioner could obviously not be charge sheeted. Almost in similar circumstances in Narinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab 1984(2) Recent Criminal Reports, 246 1985(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 120) this Court has already, expressed such a view. For all the reasons recorded. in that judgement, I allow this petition and while setting aside the charge framed against the petitioner, quash the proceedings against him.