JAGDISH PRASAD DIDWANIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners before this court seek to challenge the order dated 6.10.2001 passed by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Case No. 93(M) of 2001/ Tr. No. 1981 of 2001. By the impugned order the S.D.J.M., on the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Patna took cognizance of an offence under section 16 (1) (A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, arising from an alleged breach of the provisions of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and summoned the petitioners for trial.

(2.) THE petitioners hold a licence to stock and sell drugs. On 17.7.2001 the Complainant -Opposite party inspected their shop under the name and style of M/s New Drugs Agency and seized from there some packets of a patent named RUFAGE (Chewable fiber granules). He sent the seized packets of the Patent to the Public Analyst, Patna. The Public Analyst in his report dated 30.7.2001 expressed the opinion that the sample of RUFAGE (Chewable fiber) was misbranded within the meaning of section 2 (ix)(k) of the Act because it violated and failed to comply with rule 32 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(3.) SECTION 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteratiion Act, 1954 contains definition clauses; sub -section (ix) defines misbranded and clause (k) of the subsection provides that an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded if it was not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or the rules made thereunder.