SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sadhu Ram was tried for committing an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being in possession of 10 Kgs. of ground chillies powder, for sale, sample of which was not according to the prescribed standard as per report of the Public Analyst. In the sample, it was found that it contained 11.8% ash and 4.9% ash insoluble in dilhel against the maximum prescribed standard of 8% and 1.3% respectively. The sample also contained grit to the extent of 4.5% and oil soluble red coal tar dye. During the pendency of the trial at the instance of the petitioner, another sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The said sample did not show the existence of oil soluble red coal tar dye or contaminated discrepant with ash, soluble and dil hel. The ash did not contain any grit. However, the sample showed the presence of dead insects and one extraneous iron part clear. After the complainant had led evidence and the accused (petitioner) had made his statement and led defence evidence, in view of the decision of this Court in Ravi Ghat v. State of Punjab 1985(1)C.L.R. 392, the Magistrate dropped the proceedings until the complainant Food Inspector choose to file a fresh complaint on the basis of the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory. This order was passed on September 22, 1986, copy Annexure P-2 Thereafter, the complainant, Food Inspector, filed fresh complaint on December 20, 1985 On this complaint Sadhu Ram, the present petitioner was summoned, An application was filed by Sadhu Ram for quashing the proceedings on the second complaint. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, declined his request vide order dated January 6, 1988, copy Annexure P-4. Qa the same day, he framed fresh charge against the petitioner. The petitioner Sadhu Ram filed the present petition under Section 4i2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.

(2.) After hearing the arguments cf counsel for the parties, the following question of law was noticed and the matter was referred to the Division Bench as it was thought that the decision in Ravi Ghai's case (supra) needed reconsideration; the detailed reasons were given in the order dated September 5, 1988 :-" Whether the particulars of adulterated food stuff, as found by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, are required to be incorporated in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector initially on the basis of report of the Public Analyst which stands superseded by the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory."

(3.) The Division Bench on August 23, 1989 answered the question as under : "As the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes that of the Public Analyst, it follows that if the prosecution of the person from whom the sample had been taken is to be launched on the basis of the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, then such report must form part of the complaint of the Local Health Authority and this may be done either by amending the original complaint to incorporate therein the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory or by the withdrawal of the original complaint and the filing of a fresh complaint based upon such report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory."