D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Mrs. Santosh Ranjan has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against her including the order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken in C/2 Case No. 70 of 2003, presently pending in the Court of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case -is that on 6.9.2003 the Food Inspector, Jamshedpur has collected Shankar Brand Gram Besan and Turmeric Powder from M/s TISCO Adityapur Complex Growth Shop Canteen, Gamharia, Seraikella, Kharsawan and it was sent to the public analyst. It was found by the public analyst, vide report dated 29.9.2003 that the Besan was misbranded, cm the basis of which prosecution report dated 5.11.2003 of the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Seraikella, Kharsawan was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella and accordingly the complaint case was instituted for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in which three persons were made accused including the petitioner, Mrs. Santosh Ranjan. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Gram Besan in question was bona fidely purchased from M/s Bridhi Chand Chiranji Lai Sale Depot to be used in the canteen for its workers. There was no allegation that the alleged Besan was either manufactured by the petitioner and after packing it was prepared for sale in the open market. The public analyst did not find the Besan being adulterated. As a matter of fact, the sample of the alleged Gram Besan was sent to find out as to whether it was adulterated or not under Clause (c)(ii) of Sub -section (1) of Section (II) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and not under Clause (IX) of Section 2 to find out whether it was misbranded or not. Had it been misbranded then it could have been detected by the Food Inspector himself and there was no need to send it to the public analyst. The petitioner had fully co -operated with the Food Inspector and had provided all sorts of information as required under Section 14 -A of the Act which shows her bona fides. The Gram Besan in question was purchased from M/s Bridhi Chand Chiranji Lal Sale Depot in the canteen for the preparation of snacks etc. to be made available to the workers under the provisions of Factories Act and that it was not made for re -sale and, therefore, the report of the public analyst that it was mere misbranded does not call for an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and reliance has been placed on the decision reported in 1999 Cr LJ 4028 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Madan Lal. Finally it has been submitted that the petitioner along with Manager Sri A.P. Singh of the said canteen of the company were made accused. But in the prosecution report the sanction was accorded for prosecution only against the petitioner being the head of HR/IR TISCO, Adityapur Complex Growth Shop though she had nothing to do either with the manufacturing or packing of the alleged Besan and, therefore, the sanctioning authority had accorded sanction in the printed form in mechanical manner without application of mind without being satisfied that a prima facie case existed under the facts and circumstances of the case and he should have recorded his reasons for according sanction for launching prosecution only against the petitioner and, therefore, it can will be inferred that it was accorded on mere mechanical exercise of jurisdiction which suffers from vice of non -application of mind.
(3.) NOW the points for determination in the present case are two folds; (i) whether the sanction accorded by the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Seraikella, Kharsawan dated 5.11.2003 for launcing prosecution against the petitioner is in mechanical exercise of jurisdiction without application of mind? (ii) whether the sample collected from the canteen of the TISCO company which was found misbranded comes within the mischief of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act? ;