S.S.Sidhu, J. - (1.) This is an application made by Kimti Lal Jain and Kapil Kumar Jain under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for quashing the complaint and also the proceedings started on the basis of that complaint now pending against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garhshankar.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that Ram Parkash is running a Karyana shop at Garhshanker. On 25th July, 1974, Dr Shiv Nath Tiwari, Food Inspector, went to that shop and found Ram Parkash having in his possession about 15 kilograms of Kalpa Margarine contained in a sealed tin for public sale there. He purchased 450 grams of Kalpa Margarine on payment of Rs. 5.17 from Ram Parkash for analysis purpose. The said food staff purchased by the Food Inspector was divided into three equal parts and each part, which was of 150 grams, was put into a clear and dry bottle. One bottle containing the sample of that food stuff was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, on examination, found the sample to be adulterated as the sample was of Vanaspati Ghee and not of Margarine. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against Ram Prakash in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garshankar for his prosecution in accordance with law. Subsequently, Kimti Lal Jain and Kapil Kumar Jain, petitioners, being the manufacturers of the Kalpa Margarine, of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector, were impleaded as accused under Sec. 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
(3.) The petitioners have come to this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code, for quashing the complaint and the proceedings started on the basis of that complaint, now pending against them, on the ground that the provisions of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which prescribe that the approximate quantity of 200 grams of any of the " foods (not specified)" should be sent to the Public Analyst, were not complied with in this case. According to the petitioners, the quantity of the food stuff, viz , Margarine, purchased by the Food Inspector as a sample was less than that provided by the statutory rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore, the Public Analyst could not conduct a proper examination of the sample of Margarine, which is one of the "foods (not specified)", sent to him.;