- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the complaint and the proceedings arising there from in Case No. 4485 of 2007 under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act P. S. Bazar Khala, District Lucknow State v. Anil Jaiswal and overspending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Swaroop Cold Storage, Water Works Road, Aishbagh, Lucknow is the licensee of Cold Storage under the provisions of U. P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 and Sri Anil Jaiswal is the Manager of the above Swaroop Cold Storage, who are petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It is further contended that Sri Praveen Kumar, Food Inspector, had forcibly taken sample of Khowa under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while Khowa belongs to one customer Sri Vijai resident of Khowa Mandi, P. S. Naka, District Lucknow. The said sample was sent to the public analyst, from where report has been received finding the said Khowa adulterated. Therefore, com plaint has been filed against both the petitioners and one customer Sri Vijai named above. The work of the Cold Storage is only to keep the alleged food etc. for its preservation and the same Khowa was kept in the said Cold Storage for its pres ervation and the same Khowa was kept in the said Cold Storage for its preserva tion, which belongs to one customer Sri Vijai. Therefore, it has not been stored in the Cold Storage for sale. Therefore, the sample was taken by the Food Inspector will not come within the purview of store for sale. In such circumstances, no case was made out against the petitioners. However, they have been summoned for the trial upon the complaint filed by the Food Inspector. He has relied upon the decision of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v, Laxmi Narain Tandon etc. Criminal Appeal Nos. , 101-104 of 1971 decided on 17th December, 1975, reported in Su preme Court on Food Adulteration Cases 1948-1997. Learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam has filed the counter-affidavit. He urged that the Kh'owa was stored for sale and the sample was sold by the petitioners after taking consideration and the petitioner no. 2 has signed upon Form No. VI as per Rule-12 of the above Rules. Therefore, he is stopped from saying that such sample was not sold to the Food Inspector. Therefore, public analyst report reveals that such sample was found adulterated: In such circum stances, prima facie, the case is made out against the petitioners.
(3.) IT is essential in deciding this matter, to reproduce Section 2 (viii) of the Act as under: "sale" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and whether by whole sale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article;" IT has also been provided under Section 7 of the above Act as under: "7. Prohibition of manufacture, sale, etc. of certain articles of food.-No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute- (i) any adulterated food; (ii) any misbranded food; (iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; (iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Healthy Airthbrity in the interest of public health. (v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or (vi) any adulterant. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food re ferred to in clause (iii) or clause (iv) or clause (v) if he stores such food forthe manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party the sample was taken from the possession of the above petitioners after giving con sideration and receipt was obtained. The petitioners gave their signature upon Form No. VI, which reveals that the sample was sold by the petitioners to the Food Inspector on payment of its cost.;