D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order impugned dated 5.11.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No. 6246 of 2005 which was presently pending in the court of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
(2.) THE fact reported in brief is that prosecution was launched before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the prosecution report of the competent authority -cum -Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer against the Managing Director/Manager, Rani Salt Refineries Pvt. Ltd. Gandhidhum, Gujarat as also against Sri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, petitioner on the ground that sample of the Rani Salt collected from the retail shop of the petitioner was found adulterated due to less quantity of iodine contents as per requirement in item No. A.15.01 of appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as reported by the Public Analyst, Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order impugned dated 5.11.2003 took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the Managing Director of the Manufacturing Company as well as petitioner, Suresh Kumar Agrawal. Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised the technical point that Rule 9B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied by the Local (Health) Authority as the copy of the report of the Public Analyst as aforesaid was required to be forwarded by him to the petitioner in form III as provided under Rule 7(3) hereinafter referred to as rules, by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars were disclosed under Section 14A of the Act. In the instant case neither the Local (Health) Authority nor the Food Inspector (opposite party No. 2) handed over or sent the report of the result of analysis either in Form III or in any form under sub -rule(3) of Rule 7 even by registered post and for that petitioner has been prejudiced for non -compliance of the statutory provisions of law as he could not exercise his right to get the sample of salt examined by the Analyst of the Central Food Laboratory as provided under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Learned counsel pointed out that salt packet in question was best for use only for one year from the date of its production. The sample was taken on 2.9.2003 and the petitioner could have in exercise of his discretion under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act could have got the sample analysis by the Central Food Laboratory within one year upto 1.9.2004, since after lapse of one year the percentage of iodine in the salt packet had reduced. Further, it is submitted that prosecution in contravention of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is bad in law and void ab initio. The petitioner was therefore, prevented from exercising his valuable rights as enshrined under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for again analysing of the sample by the Central Laboratory.
(3.) A counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, i.e. Food Inspector, Jamshedpur indicates that the sample packet of Rani salt was collected while it were being sold from the petitioner and were sent to Public Analyst where it was found adulterated on account of low percentage of iodine and, accordingly, written consent was given by the District Health Authority for launching prosecution against the petitioner. It was further submitted that District Health Authority had sent the information to the petitioner within the period of ten days after receiving the copy of the report from the Public Analyst. The sample was taken on 2.9.2003, packed on 8.2.2003 containing batch No. 8 and same was tested by Public Analyst on 29.9.2003 and report of which was forwarded to the petitioner.;