Vijay Lakshmi, J. - (1.) BY means of this revision, the revisionist M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (subsequently known as Hindustan Lever Limited) has challenged the legality of the order dated 26.7.2000 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate -Ist, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1042 of 1997 under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, P.S. Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the application dated 4.7.1998 moved by the revisionist for recall of summoning order dated 12.8.1997 and for dropping of the criminal proceedings initiated on the complaint of Food Inspector, was rejected by the learned lower Court.
(2.) SOME background facts in brief are that on 23.8.1996 Shri S.K. Awathi, Food Inspector, Kalyanpur area, District Kanpur Nagar purchased from the retail shop of Ram Chandar, six packets of Tiger Brand tea each containing 100 gms, bearing label of manufacturer namely "Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited". The Food Inspector sealed those packets as per Rules separately in three parts consisting two packets in each part. One part of the sample was sent to public analyst, Lucknow for analysis and the remaining two counter parts were deposited with the local health authority. Vide report of public analyst No. 8801 dated 25.9.1996, the sample of tea was found to be adulterated because of presence of fungus on the tea leaves. Consequently, the Food Inspector made further investigation and after obtaining consent from the Local Health Authority filed a complaint in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1042 of 1997 in which the vendor Shri Ram Chander and the manufacturer Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., Calcutta, both were made the accused for contravening the provisions of Section -7(2) r/w Section 2(ia)(f) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on receiving the complaint took cognizance of the offence and vide order dated 12.8.1997 summoned the accused persons to appear in Court on 3.9.1997. The revisionist Company put in appearance through its officer in Court on 4.7.1998 and moved an application for recall of summoning order and also for dropping of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the manufacturer can be held liable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 only in case the vendor proves that he has purchased the allegedly adulterated articles of food from the manufacturer, with a written warranty in a prescribed form, to the contrary in the present case, it has been admitted by the complainant that the vendor Ram Chandar failed to produce the cash memo/warranty as provided under Section 14 of the Act. One more ground taken by the revisionist's Company for recalling of the summoning order was that the mandatory legal provision regarding the procedure for sampling, testing etc have not been complied with by the Food Inspector.
(3.) THE Court below after hearing learned counsel from both the sides rejected the application of the revisionist Company by the order impugned and fixed the date for further proceedings.;