- (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No.6 dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 as well as the summoning order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) The case of the complainant, in brief, as per the complainant (Annexure P-2) is that on 12.3.2004 at about 4.45 P.M. premises of Madan Lal Bansal was inspected. 12 packets of milk Glucose biscuits 100 gms each in packed and sealed state were found on the rack for sale for human consumption. Complainant introduced himself to the accused. 6 packets of 100 gms each of milk Glucose biscuits were purchased from Madan Lal Bansal against payment of Rs. 30/-. 2 packets of biscuits were made into a sealed parcel as sample. The sample was sent for analysis. The Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide its report, opined that the sample was mis-branded as the word "permitted colour" had been written instead of " permitted synthetic food colour" as required under Rule 24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules for short). Hence, the complaint was filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed as no offence under the Act/ Rules had been committed by the petitioner/accused. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, no synthetic colour was detected in the sample. In these circumstances, the fact that the word "permitted synthetic food colour" had not been written on the sample in stead of "permitted colour" loses its significance.;