SARDAR ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACED with the position that no revision lies against an order of framing a charge, by virtue of amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, barring the maintainability of revision petitions against interlocutory orders, the petitioner has taken recourse to Section 561a Cr. p. C. for seeking the quashing of proceedings pending against him before the Municipal Magistrate, Jammu. The charges Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, have been framed against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner sold milk which, according to the Public Analyst, was adulterated and of sub-standard quality.

(2.) MR. Amrish Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a seemingly interesting question which, of, course, does not bear close scrutiny. According to the learned Counsel since in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Central Rules) in so far as the same apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, no standard has been prescribed for buffalo or the cow's milk and as such no prosecution can be initiated against the petitioner on the allegations that the milk sold by him, was substandard according to the standards prescribed under the State Rules or was adulterated. The precise argument of Mr. Kapoor is that at the time when the Central Act i. e. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was extended to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (with effect from 26-1-1972), there were, in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir a set of rules called the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1963 and in those rules standard for buffalo's milk and cow's milk had been prescribed, but after the extension of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (Central Rules) to the State vide notification No, GSR 436-E dated 1010-1972 with effect from 10-10-1972 the State Rules ceased to have any application in the State by virtue of Section 25 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. It is argued that the rules remained in force, even after the extension of the Act to the State only till the Central Rules were extended. It is on this premise that the learned Counsel has urged that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value as true, no prosecution can be initiated against the petitioner and the proceedings need to be quashed. learned Counsel has relied upon the -judgment Ram Sanehi v. State reported in (1977) 2 FAC 129 (All), in support of his submission.

(3.) MR. S. D. Sharma. learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Nanda, learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality, have on the other hand, urged that the State Rules 1963 continue to remain in force evfen after the extension of the Central Rules and the State Rules stand repealed only to the extent to which they are inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and to no other extent. It is urged that since the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (Central Rules) do not prescribe any standard for buffalo's milk or the cow's 1 ilk in so far as the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the standard prescribed under the State Rules, 1963, woi> 1d continue to govern the field. Learr jd counsel have relied upon Shobhey v. State reported in (1977) 1 FAC 246 (All), The State v. Raia Ram 1964 (2) Cri LJ 113 (Puni) and State v. Vasdev Raihu Ran (1964) (2) Cri LJ 114 (Punj) in support of 1heir submissions.