BISHWANATH RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Gardanibagh P.S. Case no. 513 of 1998 dated 29.8.1998 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 including the order of cognizance dated 8.3.99 by the S.D.J.M., Patna.

(2.) THE prosection report was filed on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the Opposite party no. 2, Food Inspector, Civil Surgeons Office, Patna to the effect that Trilok Chand Agrawal of Durga Agency, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna is C. & F Agent of M/s Gujrat Co. Mill Marketing Federation Limited. On 29.8.1998 S.O.R., visited the premises took sample of Dhara edible oil for . analysis. The petitioner Bishwanath Rai, being Manager of the firm failed to produce sale licence as required under the P.F. Rules and, as such, it was suspected that the business was running without the licence as required under the P.F. Rules. On the factual aspect as mentioned above of the case two criminal cases were lodged; one under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and huge quantity of Milk products were seized as per the E.C. Act case. The seizure was held to be invalid in the eye of law in Cr. Misc. No. 20760 of 1998 by a Bench of this Court as it was held that the Company comes within the purview of section 31 of the Unification Order and, as such, cannot be prosecuted as protected under the (sic) E.C. Act and the Milk Products which had been seized were released in favour of the petitioner. In the case under the P.F. Act no case under section 16 of the P.F. Act could be filed as on analysis the public analyst opined that the sample of Dhara Edible Oil were perfect and does not contain any disproportionate or foreign material and hence prosecution was only under section 50 of the Act itself. According to the petitioner the licence granted under the P.F. Rules were being renewed from time to time by the petitioner and from the documents supplied it could be found that the licence was revewed for the year 1996 -1997, 1997 -1998 and 1998 -1999 and it was valid up to 23.3.1999. At the time when premises were visited by the Opposite party no. 2 the original licence was not with the petitioner as the same was lying with the Licencing authority for the purpose of renewal of licence. The licence had been returned back after renewal. There was only a suspicion being raised that the business was being done without licence. On suspicion alone prosecution could not be there and it ought to have been required by the Opposite party to verify as to whether the licence was being renewed or not. Moreover for an offence under the P.F. Act a sanction is required under section 20 of the P.F. Act but admittedly no sanction is there. In that way the cognizance is totally bad. Thus both on factual aspect and also on legal proposition the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is bad. Hence the same is hereby quashed.