BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA @ BIRJU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.6.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C -2 Case No. 1380 of 2008 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that on 25.3.2008 Food Inspector, Jamshedpur raided manufacturing unit known as 'Papaji Food Product', Jamshedpur and shop of the petitioner and took sample of 'Papaji Suji Rusk' as the same appeared to be misbranded. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst under memo No. 42 dated 25.3.2008. After its analysis Public Analyst found it misbranded within the meaning of Section 2(k)(j) and the (k) of the Act as the sample was not bearing net weight, details of ingredients used, batch No., date of manufacturing/packing and best before date as required to be there under Rules 32(d), (e), (f) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Thereupon respondent No. 2, Civil Sur - geon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Jamshedpur accorded his consent under Section 20 of the Act for prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Upon filing of the prosecution report the Chief Judicial Magis - trate, Jamshedpur, vide its order dated 18.6.2008 took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner.

(3.) THE sole contention raised by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Food Inspector, as per the complaint, never seems to have taken sample in presence of the witnesses, though under Section 10(7) of the Act, he was obliged to call two witnesses and to have their signatures on the sample and, therefore, entire case gets vitiated as the provision of Section 10(7) of the Act is mandatory.