RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is a Misc. Petition under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. challenging the validity of the order dated 28th June, 1989 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer took cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the partner of M/s. Kanmal Panna Lal.

(3.) I have gone through the order dated 28th June, 1989. It is on the complainant of the Food Inspector on the basis of inspection dated 10th July, 1980 that a case was registered against respondent No. 2 and the cognizance was taken against respondent No. 2 by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No 1, Ajmer. While the matter was pending an application was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, on 10th Aug., 1988 that the cognizance may also be taken against the proprietor and partners of M/s. Kan Mal Pannalal. After hearing the arguments on this application the impugned order dated 28th June, 1989 was passed. However, the order dated 28th June, 1989, which is impugned in this petition, does not disclose an active and objective application of mind by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate before passing the order in as much as neither the name of the person for whom the bailable warrants were ordered to be issued, has been recorded in the order nor the Magistrate has mentioned the names of the proprietors or the partners. It has been given out by Shri Kasliwal that the present petitioner Raj Kumar was only working at M/s. Kanmal Panna Lal and merely because on the cash memo bis signatures were there, he cannot be held liable. Shri Awasthi appearing for respondent No. 2, has pointed out that the present petitioner Raj Kumar is the son of one of the partners namely Panna Lal & since the material which has been found to be adulterated, had been purchased from the aforesaid firm and cash memo has been issued under the signature of Raj Kumar, who is son of Panna Lal, cognizance has been rightly taken against him by the Court concerned. Shri Kasliwal has also invited my attention to the provisions of Sec. 468, Crimial P.C. He has submitted that for the offence under Sec. 17/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the maximum sentence is three years and fine and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 468 (2) (c), Cr P.C., it is imperative to take cognizance within three years and, after expiry of three years there is no question of taking cognizance. In the instant case, cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner Raj Kumar on 28th June, 1989, whereas the date of offence is July 1980. Thus, the period of three years has expiry long back. Shri Kasliwal has also submitted that at the time when the sample was taken by the concerned Food Inspector, respondent No. 2 had given out that the material in question has been purchase from Raj Kumar. He has also submitted that the sample which has been taken was Hing, whereas the cash memo shows that it was a transaction relating to the compound Hing.