TINKU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) It appears that on 27.2.2006 the Food Inspector, Madhubani visited the Grocery shop of the petitioner took samples of Vanaspati and sent it to the Combined Food and Drug Laboratory Agamkuan, Patna for analysis/test and on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst that the said Vanaspati sample does not conform to the prescribed standard the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, submitted prosecution report in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani and on the basis thereof G.O. Case No. 95 of 2006/T.R. No. 1977 of 2006 offence under Sec.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was registered and by order dated 21.7.2006 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani took cognizance of offence. Aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance the petitioner has filed the instant application for quashing the order taking cognizance.

(3.) It has been submitted that the petitioner is the seller of Rag Vanaspati but the Food Inspector did not mention this fact in his requisition slip and simply stated that he bought three packets of Vanaspati from the petitioner's shop and sent it to the Public Analyst. In this connection it was stated that the provision of Sec.11 (i)(b) of the Food Adultration Act prescribes that any product taken for examination should be devided into three parts in presence of that person, from whose premices the material is taken but in the instant case the three packets of Vanaspati was not devided into three parts.