P L LARNBA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 22.1.93 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 56/88, whereby she dismissed petitioners application filed under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. on the ground that the same was premature.

(2.) Briefly the relevant facts are that on 16.5.88 the Food Inspector, Jodhpur purchased Kwality Ice Cream from one Jagdish Chandra Gupta of Chandra Enterprises, Jodhpur, that ice cream was divided into three samples, which were duly sealed. A sample thereof was sent to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur, who by his report dated 1.6.88 opined that the said sample did not conform to the prescribed standard under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short Rules) and was, therefore, adulterated. It is alleged that Jagdish Chandra informed the Food Inspector that M/s. Chandra Enterprises, Jodhpur was the Distributor of the Kwality Ice Creams Company, Jaipur and that he had purchased the said Ice Cream from Shri RB. Mathur, the Distribution Manager of Kwality Ice Cream. Shri R.B. Mathur, in his turn informed the Food Inspector that the Ice Cream in question was manufactured by M/s. Kwality Ice Cream Company, New Delhi. The Food Inspector after procuring the requisite section under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) filed a criminal complaint dated 22.7.88 against Jagdish Chandra Gupta of M/s. Chandra Enterprises, Shri R.B. Mathur, Distribution Manager, M/s. Kwality Ice Cream Company, Jaipur and petitioner P.L. Lamba, Managing Director, M/s. Kwality Ice Cream Company Food Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act.

(3.) Accused Jagdish Chandra and R.B. Mathur put their appearance before the learned Trial Magistrate and on their request the second sample was sent under Section 13(2) of the Act for chemical analysis to the Public Analyst, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, who by his report dated 27.11.89 opined that the said sample was adulterated.