G. S. SINGHVI, J. - (1.) IN this petition filed under Sec. 482. Cr. P. C. prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 21. 2. 1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 46/87 and the order dated 27. 2. 1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer by which he has rejected the objections of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the complaint filed against him. It has also been prayed that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner may be quashed.
(2.) THE petitioner is engaged in the business of 'halwai' who prepares sweetmeats and sells the same in the name of Agra Misthan Bhandar, Ajmer. His business premises were inspected by the Food Inspector on 8. 4. 1985 at 5. 30 p. m. Sample of Sweets 'laddoo Motichur' was taken by the Food Inspector after due notice to the petitioner. A Panchnama was prepared and the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Ajmer in form No. VII. THE sample was described as 'laddoo Motichur' prepared in Vanaspati. THE Public Analyst in his report dated 7. 5. 1985 opined that sample of 'laddoo Motichur' prepared in Vanaspati is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standard according to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as'1955 Rules' ). On this report of the Public Analyst, the Chief Medical and Health Services accorded sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as '1954 Act ). THEreafter, a complaint dated 3. 1. 1986 was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of 1954 Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner. THE petitioner filed an application on 19. 6. 1986 for quashing of the proceedings and for his discharge. After hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner vide his order dated 27. 2. 1987. THE petitioner filed a revision against this order. THE learned Sessions Judge held that there was no standard prescribed for 'laddoo' of 'motichur' in Appendix 'b' and therefore, the petitioner could not have been charged on that basis. THE learned Sessions Judge, however, declined to interfere with the proceedings on the ground that the revision was not maintainable under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. THE learned Sessions Judge observed that the petitioner is free to approach the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that no standard has been prescribed for 'motichur Laddoo' in Appendix 'b' framed under 1954 Act and therefore the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the alleged adulteration of any food article. He has argued that no offence has been committed by the petitioner under 1954 Act. He has placed reliance on several decisions of the High Courts including this Court in support of his submission. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is no justification for quashing of the proceedings at this stage because the petitioner has been found prima facie guilty of having prepared an adulterated food article. Learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the report of the Public Analyst and submitted that as per that report the sample of 'laddoo Motichur' prepared in Vanaspati is adulterated. Section 7 of 1954 Act prohibits sale, storage or distribution of any adulterated food, any mis-branded food, any article of food for the sale of which licence is prescribed except in accordance with the conditions of the licence. Section 16 of the Act provides for penalties for different types of offence. Section 23 empowers the Central Government to make rules in order to carry out the provisions of the Act. In exercise of that power the Central Government has framed provisions of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 5 of these Rules specified the standards of quality of various articles of food which are specified in Appendix 'b' appended to the Rules. Appendix 'b' in turn refers to the standards of quality of the various food articles. A perusal of the entire appendix 'b' shows that 'motichur Laddoo' is not one of the food article. In M. V. Krishna Namibissan v. State of Kerala (1), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that since no standard has been prescribed for butter milk in Appendix 'b' of 1955 Rules, a person cannot be convicted for any offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(3.) IN M/s. Brooke Bond INdia Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2) this Court held that since no standard has been prescribed for instant coffee blended with chichory no offence can be said to have been made out because from the help of the standard prescribed for the coffee it cannot be proved that the instant coffee blended with chichory is adulterated. If the Legislature in its wisdom had not prescribed any standard for instant coffee blended with chichory one cannot be prosecuted for its sample being not in conformity with the standard prescribed for coffee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Court quashed the proceedings on the basis of an application filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. In Naresh Kumar v. State of Punjab (3), a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the conviction of a person who was manufacturing 'patasa on the ground that standard and the quality or purity or the preparation of the various constituents that at go into the making of 'patasa' have not been prescribed by the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Similar view has been expressed in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (4) in the case of 'gajar Pak' and also in respect of 'badana' sweet in Mohinder Pal v. State of Punjab (5), ;