PARTHA SARATHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, petitioners, who are common, have challenged orders taking cognizance all dated 12th November, 2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella for the offence punishable u/S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1954') in connection with three cases i.e. C/2 Case No. 73/2003; C/2 Case No. 72/2003 and C/2 Case No. 67/2003, now pending in the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella.

(2.) The brief fact of the cases is that the respondent, Sri Mahesh Pandey, Food Inspector, Jamshedpur filed three complaint cases against these petitioners alleging therein that on 18th August, 2003 at 2.30 P.M., they (accused persons) exposed and sold cold drinks, which were found misbranded. It was alleged that on the same day (18th August, 2003), the accused persons were selling cold drinks, such as Mountain Dew; 7-UP; Pepsi and Mirinda Orange, out of them three of the cold drinks, namely, 7-UP; Pepsi (sweetened carbonated water), and Mirinda Orange were found misbranded as the quantity of added sugar was not mentioned on the cap or the crown of the bottles as reported by the Public Analyst, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as 'MADA') vide its report Nos. 192/03; 188/03 and 190/03 all dated 11th September, 2003. Three cases were instituted against the accused persons (petitioners). The first complaint case No. C/2 Case No. 73/2003 relates to misbranding of '7-UP'; second complaint case No. C/2, Case No. 72/2003 relates to misbranding of 'Pepsi (sweetened carbonated water)' and the third complaint case No. C/2, Case No. 67/2003 relates to misbranding of 'Mirinda Orange'. It was alleged that the quantity of added sugar having not mentioned in the cap/crown of the bottles, the accused persons are guilty for the offence u/S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. As stated above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella took cognizance in all the three cases on 12th November, 2003 against the accused persons u/S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and transferred all the cases to the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Saraikella for disposal. In all three reports submitted by Public Analyst, MADA, Dhanbad all dated 11th September, 2003, the sole allegation against the petitioners is that they misbranded the particular product i.e. '7-UP'; 'Pepsi (sweetened carbonated water)' and 'Mirinda Orange', one of them reads as follows :

(3.) According to counsel for the petitioners, on the date, the samples of 7-UP, Pepsi and Mirinda Orange were seized by the opposite parties i.e. 18th August, 2003, there was no law, such as Act or Rule laid down prescribing any condition to mention "quantity of added sugar" either on the cap or crown of the bottle. Such law having come into force from later date i.e. 1st October, 2003, it cannot be alleged that the petitioners committed offence and for that the Court cannot take cognizance against the petitioners u/S. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. On the other hand, according to learned A.P.P., the relevant law prescribing condition to mention 'quantity of added sugar' on the cap/crown of the bottle having come into effect from 1st April, 2003, the Court below rightly took cognizance against the accused persons (petitioners), they having committed offence on 18th August, 2003 i.e. the bottles were seized.