RAJ KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by petitioner has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.5.2000 passed by learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Case No. 19 (M) of 2000 taking cognizance under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (In short, "the Act").

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 8.9.1999, a poly packet carrying 400 grams of biscuits showing the name of manufacturer as Hulas Confectionary Private Limited, Pawanipur, Parsa made in Nepal was taken from the shop of petitioner, named and styled as M/s Jai Mata Di Kirana Store situate at Mulchand Path, Paharpur, Kankarbagh, Patna and it was sent to public analyst at Combined Food and Drug Laboratory, Agamkuan who, after analysis, submitted its report that the sample contravened provision of Rules 32(e) and 64BB of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (In short "the Rules") and, hence, sample in question was misbranded within the meaning of Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act. A prosecution report was submitted and learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, by his order dated 12.5.2003, took cognizance under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act and issued summons for appearance of petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this order before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel of petitioner, during the course of argument, has submitted that at the time of taking sample from the shop of petitioner, required information regarding name of manufacturer of biscuit and its purchase was given by petitioner which is evident from Form VI (Annexure -3). From perusal of Annexure -3, I find that on the sample, name and address of manufacturer were mentioned. The plea of petitioner, as made out in para -11 of his application that at the time of inspection, necessary information regarding manufacturer of biscuits and its purchase was furnished in terms of Section 14A of the Act only remains a plea and is not supported by any document. The name of manufacturer was already printed on the sample and from this, it cannot be said that the petitioner disclosed the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food as required under Section 14A of the Act.