P.S.Pattar, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Shri Shanti Bassi and Shri A.K. Oswal, who are works Manager and Managing Partner, respectively of Messrs Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries, G.T. Road, Ludhiana, under Section 492, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, on the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector.
(2.) THE facts of this case are that Messrs Oswal Banaspati and Allied Industries, G.T. Road, Ludhiana, manufacture Vanaspati Ghee and Shri Shanti Bassi, Petitioner No. 1 is its Works Manager, and Shri A.K. Oswal, Petitioner No. 2, is its Managing Partner. Rapeseed oil is one of the ingredients that the Petitioner -firm is using for the manufacture of ghee. The rapeseed oil, which they are using, is imported by the Government of India through the State Trading Corporation and then supplied to the different manufacturers of Vanaspati Ghee in India. The Food Inspector, Ludhiana visited their factory on 15th July, 1975 and took sample of the imported, rapeseed oil from the Oil Tank from the premises of the factory. The sealed sample was sent by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst, Punjab Government, Chandigarh, for analysis. The Public Analyst made the following report regarding this sample: No separate standards have been laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for rap seed oil. The loding value us of sample is 17 -17 against the usual limit of 97 -105 and saponification value is 185.99 against the usual limit of 171 -177 as prescribed in standard books. The Butyrometer reading is 6008(sic) against the usual limit 89 -60. After the receipt of this report, the Food Inspector filed a chalan under Section 16(l)(a) (i) read with Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the Petitioners in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, who summoned the Petitioners. The Petitioners have filed this application under Section 492, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings of the complaint against them as no offence under the law has been committed by them. Section 492, Criminal Procedure, Code, reads as follows: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such Orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
(3.) IN exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 the Central Government has made rules defining the standard of quality for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of various articles of food. It is undisputed that no rules for the standard of quality have been prescribed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that the rule making authority, for reasons which are obvious, has not thought fit or feasible to prescribe any standard in regard to the rapeseed oil. It is well -settled law that if no standard for the contents and quality either specifically or with reference to other items regarding any item of food has been prescribed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, then no offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of that Act is committed by the person, who sells or offers to sell such articles of food. In M.V. Krishnan Nambissan v. State of Kerala : AIR 1966 S.C. 1676, it was held as under: No standard for the contents of butter -milk either specifically or with reference to other items is prescribed. A comparative study of item in Appendix B to the Rules leaves no room for doubt that the rule -making authority for reasons, which are obvious, has not thought fit or feasible to prescribe any standard in regard to the contents of butter -milk. Hence, a person selling butter -milk cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 16(l)(a)(i) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1934, read with Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. To the same effect was the law laid down in Amar Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1974)1 Cri. L. T. 400.;