BHANU SHANKAR ROUTRAY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Bhanu Shankar Routray has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 19.1.2012, Annexure P1 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga thereby ordering framing of charge against the petitioner and his co -accused for offence punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) and dismissing the application of petitioner's co -accused for discharge. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(2.) SAMPLE of iodized 'salt of petitioner's company being brand owner was reported to be misbranded because it contained additives like iodine, but still it was labelled as 'pure' which is violation of Rule 43(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, the Rules).

(3.) I need not go into the aforesaid contention because the said contention was discarded vide order dated 19.10.2006, Annexure P4 whereby petition filed by the petitioner's company under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint and summoning order was dismissed. The aforesaid contention based on judgments in the cases of Amarjeet Singh (supra) and Baldev Raj (supra) was raised at that time also. Counsel for the petitioner contended that after passing of order Annexure P4, pre -charge evidence has been led. However, the position for the time being remains the same as in order Annexure P4. Accordingly, without going into merits of the claim of the petitioner, the instant revision petition is dismissed. Nothing in this order shall have any bearing on merits at the time of final decision of the case.