Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 633 dated 30.6.2009 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'); Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the PFA Act' for short) and Sections 102, 103 and 114 of the Trade Mark Act registered at Police Station City Panipat and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as the proceedings under the PFA Act had already been initiated against the petitioner qua the said offence.
(2.) LEARNED State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, petitioner was found to be in possession of adulterated ghee. The sample of ghee was sent for analysis to the laboratory and the public analyst reported as under (Annexure P2): "The sample does not conform to the prescribed, standards as laid down for ghee under item A.11.2.15 of appendix B of PFA Rules 1955, thereof in that: (1) The sample gives 56.0 of Butyro -refractometer reading at 40øC against the maximum specified limits of 43.0. (2) The sample gives 5.28 Reichert Value against the minimum specified limits of 28.0. (3) Baudouin test is positive whereas, it should be negative. Hence, the sample is adulterated."
(3.) ANNEXURE P1 is the notice served on the petitioner by the Civil Surgeon, Panipat that the proceedings under the Act had been initiated against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Petitioner was directed to appear before the said Court on 6.1.2010.;