BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners herein seeking quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 642/2011 registered for the offences under Ss. 7 and 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan.

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal the instant misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:- The Food Inspector, Jodhpur visited premises of M/s Shriram International (Unit of Shriram Hotel), Residency Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur on 29/4/2011, where he met Vikas Shrivastav (Seller & General Manager). Food articles viz. vegetables, Rotis, Paneer Pakoda etc. were being prepared and served to the public in the hotel. The Food Inspector collected sample of food article Paneer (cottage cheese) from the cold storage of the hotel. The sample of Paneer was divided into three parts, one of which was forwarded to the Local Health Authority, Jodhpur for analysis from where, a report dtd. 25/5/2011 was received to the effect that the food article (Paneer) was adulterated. The Food Inspector thereafter, collected details of the partners/directors of the firm M/s Shriram International and was allegedly apprised that the petitioners herein, Bhanwarlal and Omprakash were the partners of the firm which was operating the hotel. Accordingly, a complaint came to be filed by the Food Inspector in the court of CMM, Jodhpur against the petitioners and few others with the allegations that the accused persons being the directors/partners of the firm were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as adulterated food article Paneer was being sold to public from the firm's premises.

(3.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners are not connected with the day to day affairs of the Firm and even a bare perusal of the complaint goes to show that the petitioners have not been saddled with the responsibility of conducting the day to day affairs of the Firm in any manner.