BARFI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have moved this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order D/- 16-5-96 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Kushalgarh in criminal regular case No. 626/91 u/S. 7 r/w 16 Prevention of Food Adultration Act, 1954 (hereinafter in short the Act). The petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of the aforesaid case against them may be dropped for the grounds given in the petition.

(2.) Before I deal with the arguments raised before me, it is necessary to give brief facts leading to this petition. Shri R. P. Tyagi, Food Inspector took sample of mustard oil from the shop of accused No. 1 Shri Sirajuddin on 7-5-89 from out of a sealed tin in accordance with the provisions in this regard under the Act. The sealed tin was bearing grade-IInd,, Batch No. H/3 674430, Bharatpur city. Shri Sirajuddin produced the bill No. 601 dt. 1-4-89 that it was purchased by him from M/s. Santosh Kumar Maganlal Khabia, Kushalgarh accused No. 2 Shri Rajnikant. M/s. Santosh Kumar Maganlal Khabia further stated to have purchased the mustard oil by bill No. 010071, D/- 13-3-89 from M/s. Babulal Rajesh Kumar and Company, Jaipur. M/s. Babulal Rajesh Kumar and Company stated that the mustard oil was purchased by them from the manufacturer M/s. Kailash Chandra Raghuvar Dayal, Bharatpur city. The sample did not conform to the prescribed standard therefore, complaint was lodged by the Food Inspector, Shri Tyagi in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara against the partners of M/s. Babulal Rajesh Kumar and Company, Jaipur petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 and also against M/s. Kailash Chandra Raghuvar Dayal, Bharatpur city and its proprietor Bhagwan Das petitioners Nos. 9 and 10 along with Sirajuddin retailer and Rajkant proprietor M/s. Santosh kumar Maganlal Khabia, Kushalgarh.

(3.) The Trial commenced and the case was fixed for evidence before charge that an application was moved by the petitioners on 11-12-95 to drop the proceedings because no offence was made out against them. The learned trial Court held that the application was belated and it was not competent to review the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner. It was observed that the petitioners were partners of the firm and prima facie case existed for proceeding with the trial.