- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 in all the three applications, which involve identical questions for determination.
(2.) The present Cr. Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, praying for quashing the order of cognizance, passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and also against the orders of the Sessions Judge, rejecting the Cr. Revision applications filed by him against the impunged orders of cognizance passed by the Magistrate.
(3.) Facts relevant for the disposal of these cases are as follows: The petitioner in all these three Cr. Miscellaneous Petition is vendor of various food articles including salt. The complainant-Food Inspector visited the retail shop of the petitioner and found the petitioner's selling salt of different brands. The Food Inspector purchased samples of the different brands of salt and after obtaining the petitioner's signatures on each sample, forwarded the samples for examination to the Combined Food and Drugs Laboratory, Agamkuan, Patna. The test reports of the samples, submitted by the Laboratory, confirmed that the samples of salt does not conform to the prescribed standard under Rule A.15.01 of Appendix B read with Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Thus, on the basis of the Laboratory Report, the complainant had concluded that the petitioner was found selling adulterated salt. The petitioner had pleaded that different brands of salt of which the seized samples were prepared, were neither produced nor manufactured by him. Rather, the various brands of salt was produced from different manufacturers and he had believed bona fidely in good faith that the salt, which was supplied to him by the manufacturers did conform to the prescribed standard as laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. In support of his claim, he had also produced bills/vouchers of purchase, issued by the purported manufacturers. On the basis of the above disclosure, the Food Inspector submitted separate Prosecution Reports for prosecuting the petitioner as also the manufacturers, named by the petitioner, for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, after obtaining due sanction from the local Health authority. On the basis of the Prosecution Reports, the learned court below took cognizance of the offence, directing issuance of summons to the petitioner to face trial in each of the cases. Being aggrieved with the orders of cognizance, the petitioner filed separate Cr. Revision applications before the Sessions Judge, but the same were dismissed.;