HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by Tek Chand under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint Annexure P/2 and resultant proceedings thereof pending in the Court of Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Panipat under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 30-8-1984 Shri A.N. Sharma, Food Inspector, inspected the premises of Tek Chand who was having in his possession about 10 litres of cows milk for public sale. The Food Inspector demanded a sample of the milk for analysis and purchased 660 mili-litres of cow milk which was divided into three equal parts and was sealed into three dry and clean bottles in accordance with the rules. One sample was got analysed from Public Analyst, Haryana, who found that the sample contained milk fat 8.0% and milk solids not fat 7.5%. The sample was deficient in milk solids not fat contents to the extent of 12% of the minimum prescribed standard. Thus, complaint for the trial of the petitioner for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was presented. The petitioner alleged that no offence whatsoever was made out against him of which cognizance could be taken by trial Court and the proceedings against him amounted to an abuse of the proceedings of Court. It was contended that earlier the trial Court adopted procedure of warrant trial and charge was framed against the petitioner on 15-10-1985. The trial continued for about three years when on 14-6-1988 the trial Court ordered fresh trial of the case in a summary manner. The trial court had no jurisdiction to revert back and was not legally competent to proceed with the re-trial of the petitioner in respect of the same offence. In this case the Public Analyst had opined that milk solids not fat was 12% deficient while the fat content in the milk was higher than the minimum prescribed standard which led to an inference that no water had been added to the milk and the milk was not adulterated. Stirring of the milk was not mentioned in the spot memo and much reliance could not be place on the printed complaint containing the word 'stirred'. The sample was not taken in a proper manner after making the entire milk homogeneous and in this way the milk which was otherwise rich in its fat contents was found deficient in milk solids not fat.
(3.) IN the return filed by the respondent the averments made in the petition were denied.;