VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against framing of charge against the petitioner in a complaint filed under sections 7(i) (2)(i) (j) & 16 (1-A) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act) read with Rule 219 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules).
(2.) THE allegations against the petitioner are that on 20.12.2004 at about 3.00 p.m. Jagmohan Singh, Food Inspector found the petitioner in possession of 5 kilograms of Shahi Paneer for public sale at M/s Prashar Sweets and Restaurant SCO 12, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. The Food Inspector purchased 1500 grams of Shahi Paneer for the purposes of analysis and examination which on analysis has been found to be adulterated as the contents of the sample contained synthetic food colour sunset yellow (C.1.15985), whereas the addition of which is not permitted under Rule 29 of the Rules 1955 and thus, committed an offence under sections 7 (1)(2) (i)(j) of the Act. Charge has been framed on the basis of complaint filed by Chandigarh Administration. Mr. R.S. Bains, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought quashing of the charge-sheet primarily on the ground that Rule 29 of the Rules was ultra vires being biased and against the principles of natural justice. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that food colour used by the petitioner is permitted colour under Rule 28 of the Rules for use in food products.
(3.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of Rule 29 on the ground that the use of said colour is permitted by big manufacturers but the same is prohibited in the food products manufactured by poor persons like Dhaba/Restaurant owners.;