R.R.PRASAD,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal case of P.F.A. No. 13/ 04 (T.R. No. 1728/04), including the order dated 06/04/2004, whereby and whereunder the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the complainant that he purchased three bottles of Mirinda Orange on 09/08/2003 from the shop of Harmeet Singh. The said Mirinda Orange had been manufactured by M/S S.M.V. Beverages to which the petitioner is the General Manager. The complainant, after purchasing the bottles of the soft drink (Mirinda Orange), sent it for its chemical analysis. During chemical analysis it was found that the manufacturer had not printed 'best before use' over the cap of the bottles and at the same time extent of sugar content had also not been disclosed. Having received the said chemical analysis report, a complaint was lodged, which was registered as P.F.A. No. 13/04 under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly, the Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against the petitioner and others vide its order dated 06/04/2004, which is under challenge.
(3.) MR . Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the entire prosecution is bad as the requirement of putting forth 'best before use' and also requirement of giving quantity of sugar was mandated vide notification dated 30th December 2002, but it were made effective w.e.f. from October 2003, whereas the samples had been purchased on 09/ 08/2003, on which date there was no such requirement of law of putting forth 'best before use' and the quantity of sugar over the bottles of soft drink (Mirinda Orange) and under the circumstances the trial court certainly committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence vide its order dated 06/04/2004.;