- (1.) This is a petition under Section 428 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram, through its sole proprietor Mr. Ranjit Lal Khanna, seeking the quashment of the criminal complaint under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the petition it was alleged that on 10-12-1998 a sample of Iodine Areal Super Fine Salt was taken by the Food Inspector from Ranjit Lal Khanna, proprietor of the petitioner firm for analysis and after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was instituted in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. It was alleged that no offence whatsoever was made out against the petitioner and no complaint could be filed nor its cognizance could be taken by the trial Magistrate. It was alleged that the accused was protected under Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 12-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was alleged that the article was purchased from M/s. Durga Dutt Sunil Dutt, manufacturers of the said salt (accused No. 2 in the criminal complaint) and that the packet had the label of said manufacturer which amounted to a warranty under Rule 12-A of the said Rules. It was alleged that in the spot memo, copy Annexure P-3, it was specifically mentioned by the Food Inspector that the packet of the Iodine sale was alleged to have been purchased from Durga Dutt Sunil Dutt, manufacturers of the Iodine Salt, vide bill No. 86 dated 26-11-1998. Copy of the said bill was attached as Annexure P4 with the present petition. It was alleged that the only fault found by the Public Analyst in his report was that the product had not been labelled as per provisions of Rule 32 of the abovesaid Rules, as complete list of ingredients had not been given. It was alleged that the petitioner could not be held liable for the same and only manufacturer was liable for the same. It was alleged that otherwise sample of Iodine salt conformed to the standards laid down in this regard.
(2.) In the written reply filed by Shri Sukhrao Singh, Government Food Inspector, it was alleged that on 10-12-1998, sample was taken from Ranjit Lal Khanna, petitioner for analysis and that one part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh for analysis, who had reported that the product had not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules, as complete list of ingredients in descending order of their composition had not been given and as such the product was mis-branded. It was alleged that on the basis of the said report of the Public Analyst, criminal complaint was filed. It was admitted that accused No. 1 namely Ranjit Lal Khanna had handed over bill of Durga Dutt Sunil Dutt, manufacturer of the Idoine salt, to the Food Inspector and had also told him that he had purchased the product from the said manufacturer and this fact was also incorporated in the spot memo. It was alleged that the petitioner can take benefit of Section 19 of the said Act and Rule 12-A of the said Rules only after proving the same during trial and no case for quashing the criminal complaint was made out.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.;