- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This application under fsection 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by Sri Sharma Ayurved Mandir, Datia, M. P. and four others who are partners of the said firm for quashing the criminal proceedings in Case No. 2512 of 1982-State v. Om Prakash and others pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Saharanpur and the summoning order dated 15-7-1983.
(2.) THE Food Inspector inspected the shop of the Om Prakash and took sample of honey for analysis by the Public Analyst. At the time of taking sample of honey, the Food Inspector Sri K. K. Wasla had given his introduction to the accused Om Prakash and told him that he wanted to take sample of honey which is a food product. After the said notice was given to the shopkeeper Om Prakash, three sealed phails of 250 gtns honey was purchas ed by the Food Inspector, sealed and sent to the Public Analyst for analysis under the rules of Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act. THE report from the Public Analyst was received on 18-3-1981 and the sample of honey was found to be adulterated, not in conformity with the prescribed standard. Since the sealed bottles of honey was obtained by Sri Om Prakash accused from M/s. Maheshwari Aushadhi Bhandar, Kakadganj, Saharanpur vide bill dated 18-12-1980, the proprietor of the said firm was also arrayed as accused in the case. A complaint for prosecution under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act was filed in the Court of Magistrate. THE Food inspector submitted an application before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences, ) Saharanpur for summoning the Manager of Sri Sharma Ayurved Mandir Datia, Shivaji Road, Jhansi. THE Court was pleased to issue uotice to Sri Sharma Ayurved Mandir and others for facing the trial. A writ petition No. 14623 of 1986 was filed by the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 challenging the action of the Food Inspector taking the sample of Ayurvedic Drugs and also prayed for quashing the proceedings in criminal case under Section 7/16 of Prevention ol Food and Adulteration Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Saharanpur. On the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass a stay order staying the further proceedings in the case pending before tbe Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Saharanpur. The said writ petition remained pending and on 25-4-1991 the Division Bench was pleased to dispose of the revision with observation:- "the proper remedy available to the petitioners is to file an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. In view of this, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners may file petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. within a month from today. " The present application under Section 482 has been filed on 11-7-1991. It appears that the affidavit accompanying with the petition was got verified on 24th May, 1991 and was filed in July as stated. The applicants have filed this application for quashing on the grounds, namely: " (i) That the applicants are licensee firm under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act engaged in the business of manufacturing of Aurvedic Drugs "sharmayu Madhu", sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector, is not a food product but an Aurvedic medicine. ' The Food Inspector has no authority in law to take sample of Aurvedic medicines in view of the provisions of Section 33-EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Thus, it was submitted that the prosecution of the applicants under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is without jurisdiction and the complaint and the proceeding taken thereunder is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. "
(3.) IT is not disputed that honey is a Food product and is covered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicants in the application stated that natural honey is available from beehives is not conducive or recommended for use as Madhu. They referred to Aurvedic Texts of Nighantu Ratnakara and Sushruta Sanhita. IT was further stated in the paragraph No. 12 that the extracted honey from the beehives is clinically processed and scientifically cleaned in the factory of the firm. Whereafter the Sharmayu Madhu product is prepared and manufactured. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the applicants is that "sharmayu Madhu" is an Ayurvedic medicine and not honey to attract the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicants submit that Sharmayu Madhu could not be taken for analysis by the Food Inspector for analysis of honey. The other submission of the applicants is that all the applicants could not be summoned to face the trial unless it was shown and proved that the liability of the partners was of all the applicants.;