- (1.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr PC has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including order taking cognizance dated 2.11.1998 against the petitioners in connection with C/2 Case No. 906/98, whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial magistrate took cognizance under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and
(2.) FACTS briefly stated are that Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur sent a letter bearing No. 1896 dated 2.11.1998 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for registration of FIR against Madan Lal Agrawal, proprietor of Sri Naresh Store, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur forwarding therewith letter No. 927 dated 23.10.1998 of Special Officer Rationing, Jamshedpur, from which it appears that Special Officer Rationing had taken sample of Lakshmi Brand mustard oil from the shop of Madan Lal Agarwal, proprietor of Sri Naresh Store and sent the same to the Public Analyst, Combined Food and Drug Laboratory, Agamkuan, Patna and after chemical enquiry it was found to be adulterated. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire criminal prosecution is not maintainable in view of the fact that there are a number of shortcomings that have been committed by both Special Officer Rationing, Jamshedpur and the Chief Medical Officer, Jamshedpur and it was pointed out that neither Special Officer Rationing nor Marketing Officer was empowered to take sample under Section 9 of the provisions of Food Adulteration Act because Food Inspector was appointed by notification in the official gazette having prescribed qualifications to be Food Inspector for such local areas as may be assigned to him by the Central Government or the State Government. It was further pointed out that under Section 10 of the Act, it was only those inspectors, who are appointed under Section 9 of the Act, can take samples to send the same for analysis to the public analyst. It was further pointed out that Section 2 (VIII) of the Act, defines local authority and similarly Section 2 (viii -iv) of the Act defines local (Health) authority. It was further pointed out that Secretary Food and Civil Supplies had no jurisdiction to ask Special Officer Rationing to take sample under Adulteration Act and before taking sample such procedures have to be adopted under Section 11 of the Act. As per Section 11 , no notice in writing was given to the petitioner or his representatives in Form VI of Rule 12 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, 1955 and procedure, as required under Rule 15(a), was also not adopted, as code number and serial number of the Local (Health) Authority was not given on label of sample. It was further pointed out that mandatory provisions, as required under Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9(B) of the rules, have not been followed and in the instant case there was no sale of any food article and it does not disclose that article was purchased by Special Officer Rationing.;