RAJIV BANSAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the entire criminal prosecution including order taking cognizance dated 12.11.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in connection with C/II Case No. 71 of 2003, now pending in the Court of the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying on the Notification dated 3rd December, 2002 (Annexure -3) submitted that the concerned rules i.e. Sub -Rules (ii) and (iii) came into force with effect from 1.10.2003. Under the said Rules, such contents were required to be mentioned on the cap of the bottle, which the petitioner is following on and from 1.10.2003. He relied on 2005 (3) JCR 413 (Jhr), Partha Sarathi Kumar and another V/s. The State of Jharkhand and another, in support of his contention he further submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the Director and petitioner No. 2 is the employee of the Distributor Company.