- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the peti tioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner Arun Kumar has sought quashing of the pro ceedings initiated against him in Crimi nal Case No. 225 of 2007; Food Inspec tor Vs. Som Dutt and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. Brief facts of the case are that on 31-08-1987, a sample of 'arhar1 pulse (750 gms.) was purchased from Som Dutt, who was running a retail gro cery shop in Purola, Uttarkashi. As per the complaint filed by the Food Inspec tor, the sample was taken after giving due notice in Form VI to Som Dutt and it was kept and sealed in three clean, dry and empty jars. With Form No. VII, one of the sample was sent to the Pub lic Analyst from where on analysis the purchased item was found adulterated. Since, the accused Som Dutt had taken plea that he had purchased the 'arhar' dal from M/s Jyoti Prasad Bhagat Ram of Dehradun through bill No. 1139 dated 03-06-1987, the Food Inspector filed complaint (copy Annexure-1 to the pe tition) against the accused Som Dutt as well as against M/s Jyoti Prasad Bhagat Ram, after obtaining necessary sanction from the local health authority. It ap pears that Som Dutt is facing the trial. However, though, no names of the part ners of M/s Jyoti Prasad Bhagat Ram were disclosed by the complainant Food Inspector in the complaint, but it ap pears that the then partners were sum moned in the criminal complaint case filed by the Food Inspector. According to the petitioner (Arun Kumar), he was not a partner in the firm and he became partner only in the year 1990, as such, he cannot be prosecuted for a sample filled in the year 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the death certificate of Raj Kumar Goel, father of the petitioner Arun Kumar, who died on 08-09-1990 and a copy of the partner ship deed dated 13-09-1990, both of which are annexed as Annexure -2 to the petition. The partnership deed dated 13-09-1990 shows that after death of Raj Kumar Goel, his son Arun Kumar (present petitioner) was inducted as one of the partners in the firm. It is true that in respect of a sample filled by Food Inspector in the year 1987, petitioner Arun Kumar was neither retailer, nor partner of the firm of the wholesale dealers, and as such, he could not have been prosecuted in the criminal com plaint, which relates to the incident of 1987.
(3.) IN the circumstances, summon ing of the petitioner Arun Kumar and issuing warrant of arrest against him by the trial court in respect of an offence of 1987, is on the face of it illegal and arbitrary, and the order dated 02-08-2007, passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioner for re call of warrant of arrest, is liable to be quashed. In the above circumstances, and for the reasons as discussed above, the proceedings against the petitioner Arun Kumar, who was not accused in the criminal complaint filed by the Food Inspector on 12-03-1988 (which is now re-numbered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 225 of 2007) are quashed, as nei ther the petitioner was retailer nor a partner of the Firm, when the impugned sample was filled by the Food Inspector. However, the proceedings in respect of the another co-accused Som Dutt shall not be treated to have been interfered with. The Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. stands, accordingly, allowed. .;