MD.IZHAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is stated to be a retail seller, is aggrieved by his prosecution under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 in Bhagalpur P.S. Case No. 37/2007 corresponding to T.R. No. 2076/2007. The order of cognizance is dated 22.1.2007. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and purchased Nirma Salt 500 x 3 grams on the payment of Rs. 12/ - which was that sent to the public analyst. The report was the product did not comply with the labeling provisions regarding fixation of the logo that it was a vegetable product and, therefore, it was misbranded. The defence of the petitioner is that he is a simple shopkeeper and not the manufacturer of the salt, who was required to affix the appropriate labels. If the appropriate labels were missing on the product, the manufacturer was liable for the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submits that no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and that his prosecution alone in absence of the manufacturer is not sustainable. He relies upon two Bench decisions of this Court reported in 2007 Suppl. P.L.J.R. 678 (Abhishek Abhiranjan @ Babu V/s. State of Bihar) and 2008 (4) P.L.J.R. 135 (Vinita Bali V/s. The State of Bihar).