RAJ KUMAR KARAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (substituting Rule 9 (j) with effect from the 4th of January, 1977), though couched in terms mandatory, is yet, in substance, directory, is the meaningful question which has necessitated this reference to the larger Bench.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. The Food Inspector of Pandaul Block within the district of Madhubani inspected the shop of the petitioner and took samples of mustard oil and Mirich and, in accordance with the rules, sent them to the Public Analyst for chemical examination. On a report received from the Public Analyst, it was found that both the food articles were adulterated and, after obtaining necessary sanction, two separate complaints were preferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, who took cognizance thereof under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred, to as the 'Act). Both the cases were later transferred for trial to another Magistrate. The petitioner thereafter preferred two Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1771 and 1776 of 1981 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings.

(3.) These criminal miscellaneous cases originally came up for hearing before my learned Brother, B.P. Griyaghey, J., sitting singly. Before him it was first sought to be urged that sanction required under Section 20 of the Act having not been obtained in the present cases, the prosecution instituted was illegal. However, on behalf of the State, Notification No. 126 dated the 29th of November, 1978 was placed on the record, whereby all the Chief Medical Officers had been authorised by the State Government under Section 20 of the Act to accord sanction for the prosecution. In view of this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly abandoned this ground altogether.