RAMESH KUMAR MALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dt. 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Cr. Case No. 548/2011 whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 7(i) & (ii) r/w Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Food Inspector Sirohi during inspection on 13.07.2010 collected samples of Swastik Brand Mustard Oil from the shop of Hitesh Kirana Store being operated by Dilip Kumar Mali. The mustard oil purchased by the Food Inspector was factory packed in 500 ml bottles. As per the label appended on the bottles and as per the bill submitted by the vendor, the mustard oil was manufactured by the petitioner's firm M/s. Shree Ashok Oil Industries, Sumerpur. The sample of the mustard oil so purchased from Dilip Kumar was forwarded to the public analyst for analysis. The public analyst by the report dt. 10.08.2010 gave an opinion that the sample conformed to the prescribed standards laid down under item A17.06 of Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules but it was misbranded under Sub -clause (K) of Clause (ix) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as the nutritional facts were not disclosed on the label as required under Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(2.) SANCTION was sought for prosecution of the petitioner and the co -accused. The sanctioning authority i.e. the C.M.H.O., Sirohi accorded sanction to prosecute the accused by a communication dt. 24.11.2011 wherein it was observed that "the sample of the mustard oil purchased from the vendor Dilip Kumar and manufactured by the petitioner's firm was adulterated". The complaint flied by the Food Inspector was also filed with the similar limited allegation that the sample of oil was adulterated.

(3.) SHRI Richin Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ex -fade the order taking cognizance against the petitioner and the co -accused is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He submitted that the sample of the mustard oil upon its analysis by the public analyst was found conforming to the standards prescribed under the Act. He, therefore, urged that the sanction, which has been accorded for prosecuting the accused in this case suffers from an absolute non -application of mind. He further submitted that the complaint filed by the Food Inspector is also suffering from the same fundamental defect because it has been filed with the limited allegation that the sample was adulterated, whereas the fact remains that the mustard oil was not adulterated and was found conforming to standards on being analysed by the public analyst. Learned counsel thus urged that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the order taking cognizance should be quashed. He relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Nath & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi., reported in : AIR 1971 SC 1844 and urged that the Rule 32 of the Rules, the violation whereof is alleged in this case has been declared to be ultra vires and thus, the proceedings of the complaint should be quashed.