AJAY KUMAR DEDHEECH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C/2 Case No. 685 of 2008, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him in the said C/2 Case No. 685 of 2008.

(3.) The prosecution report has been brought on record, which shows that the sample of bread was taken from the general food shop of the petitioner, which was found to be misbranded. The analysis report has also been brought on record which shows that the bread was not labeled in accordance with Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and hence it was misbranded. With these allegations the persecution report was filed, on the basis of which the cognizance was taken by the Court below.