ANSHUL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the accused-petitioners are seeking to quash the order of cognizance dated 15.9.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in Criminal Complaint Case No. 547/2010 and the subsequent proceedings arising thereunder for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 10.4.2010 at 5.25 p.m. Food Inspector Shri Shanker Lal Mali visited the shop of M/s. Vardhman Traders, Bandikui (coaccused) and in the course of inspection of that shop he took sample of fruit drink "Mango Jayanti"" on the premise that the aforesaid food Articles did not conform to the standards laid down under the provisions of the Act. In due course of time, one of the samples was sent to the State Central Public Health Laboratory, Jaipur and the public analyst vide report dated 3.5.2010 opined that the sample is misbranded being in violation of clause (i) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules") as the period of six months from the date of manufacture within which the food Articles was best fit to be used was given in small letters whereas the aforesaid Rule required that the same should be given in capital letters. After obtaining requisite consent from the competent authority, complaint for the aforesaid offence was filed by the Food Inspector against the petitioners being partners of the firm (Petitioner No.4) who sold and distributed the aforesaid food Articles to the vendor as well as the manufacturer (Petitioner No.5) and also against the vendor i.e. owner of M/s. Vardhman Traders, Bandikui from whose shop the samples were taken. On the basis of the complaint and the documents filed alongwith it, the Court below vide order dated 15.9.2010 took cognizance for the aforesaid offence and I issued bailable warrant against the accused including the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following grounds: