SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Ss. 397/401 is directed against the order dtd. 21/1/2004 passed by the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 16(1) (a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sh.H.K.Bishnoi, Food Inspector, Nagaur visited the petitioner's shop M/s. Chaturbhuj Bhagirath on 9/9/95 and took sample of edible 'Til Oil' of Rajhans Brand. The sample was sent to the Food Laboratory for analysis. It was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the standard of 'Til Oil'. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner, proprietor of the firm M/s Chaturbhuj Bhagirath as well as Raju Manwani, Proprietor of M/s Hari Oil Mills. Along with the complaint a memo has also been filed which indicates the sample was taken from the sealed Tin and there is also a bill produced by the petitioner at the time of taking sample which shows that he had purchased the 'Til Oil' from M/s Hari Oil Flour Mills, Jodhpur. After filing of the charge sheet, Raju Manwani, the proprietor of M/s Hari Oil Flour Mills died on 18/12/99. Charges were framed against the petitioner by the impugned order dtd. 21/1/2004.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that as the sample was taken from the sealed tin, for which a bill was issued by the dealer, there are no chances of petitioner's conviction particularly in view of the provisions of Sec. 19(2) and Sec. 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It will be apt to read Sec. 19(2) and Sec. 14 which provide defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act. It reads as under:-