TRILOK KUMAR Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing a proceeding pending against him in the court of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, under Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been made an accused in T.R. Case 376 of 1980 only because of the fact that the sample which was sold by the other accused to the Food Inspector, bears the name of his firm - -Messrs Mahadeo Products. The petitioner is a partner of the said firm.

(2.) The fact, which ltd to the filing of the present application, in short is that a complaint petition was filed in the court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, by the Food Inspector, Sultanganj, on 7.10.75 for taking cognizance under Sec. 16 of the Act. The brief description of the offence is mentioned in the prosecution report which is as follows - - -

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the proceeding against the petitioner is wholly illegal, misconceived and is fit to be quashed. He further contended that in complaint petition there is no allegation that the complainant exercised his power under Sec. 14A of the Act for the purpose of ascertaining from the seller that he has purchased the adulterated cream toffee from the firm of the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted in paragraph 14 of the application that, in fact, he is not the manufacturer of the Modern Cream Toffee nor did he ever sell such toffee to the seller, another accused of the case. His submission is that the petitioner's firm has never issued any warranty to the seller which is required under Sec. 14 of the Act.