STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. INDRA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come up Under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur dated February 18, 1987 by which he set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22 -7 -1982 and discharged the accused -respondents from the offences Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) BRIEFLY recalled the relevent facts are that the Enforcement Inspector, Bharatpur lodged a complaint against the accused -respondents for the offences under the aforesaid Acts, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur. It was stated there in that the District Supply Officer visited the flour mill of the accused -respondents on 9 -11 -1981, and took the samples of Maida, Suji and Resultant Atta. The samples were sent for analysis and on analysis the Resultant Atta was found adulterated because it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purety. The accused -respondents put appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and raised two objection before him (1) the Enforcement Inspector was not authorised to file complaint Under Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and (2) no standards of purety were prescribed in respect of Resultant Atta under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the 'Rules'). It was further ragitated that as per condition VIA of the licence granted to the accused persons, they could commit the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 only when the Resultant Atta was found adulterated and not otherwise. The objections did not find favour with the Chief Judicial Magistrate and he repelled them. The accused went in revisions which was beard and he disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur The same objections were raised before him The objections found favour with him. He held that in the Rules, no standards were prescribed in respect of the result Atta. The Enforcement Inspector was not a competent person to lodge complaint Under Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As the Resultant Atta could not be held to be adulterated, no term of the licence granted to the accused persons under the Wheat Roller Flour (Licensing and Control Order 1957 was breached or violated by them. Therefore, no offence was made out against them Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The revision was consequently allowed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was quashed. The complaint filed by the Enforcement Inspector was dismissed and the accused -respondents were discharged. The State has now approached this Court Under Section 482 Cr PC for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor could not demur the position in Saw that a complaint for the offences Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act can be lodged only by a person authorised Under Section 20 of the said Act. Admittedly he Enforcement Inspector was not authorised Under Section 20 of the said Act to launch the prosecution against the accused. The Court, therefore, could not tack cognizance of the offence Under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act, 1964 against the accused. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect is justified and calls for no interference.