PUSHPENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against him in the complaint filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, dated 18th February, 1983 under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The relevant facts in brief may be stated.

(2.) SHRI S.N. Sharma, Food Inspector for the local area of District Solan, filed a complaint against the petitioner and Shri Dil Bahadur, Gorkha, under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The record shows that the milk was purchased from Dil Bahadur on payment. The sample was sent to the public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh. The milk was found adulterated. The report to the Public Analyst is Ex. PE. A Panchnama was prepared and witnessed by Shri Jagan Nath and Shri Sant Ram. The Panchnama is marked as Ex. PD. In the complaint S/Shri S.N. Sharma, Food Inspector, Shri Jagan Nath Halwai, Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Committee, Solan, Shri Sant Ram and Local Health Authority, Solan, were named as witnesses. Before the process was issued for summoning the accused persons, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, recorded the statement of Shri S.N. Sharma, Food Inspector. It is stated by him that on 14th October, 1982 Dil Bahadur was intercepted who had milk for sale with him. After a notice was served on him, the milk was purchased which was found to be adulterated after analysis. It is further stated by this witness that Dil Bahadur had disclosed to him that he was the servant of the petitioner and was selling milk on his behalf. It is also stated by him that he sent a notice. Ex. PB to the petitioner. After the summons were received by the petitioner, he approached this Court for quashing the proceedings against him.

(3.) MR . Sethi has referred to a decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, [1983(1) Supreme Court Cases 11]. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made observations in respect of the powers of a High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is convenient to reproduce the said paragraph for a ready reference :