PRAKASH DESAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), challenges the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by JMFC, Ganj Basoda, whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Section 245 (1) CrPC (Annexure P/9) is rejected by the court below.

(2.) Draped in brevity, the admitted facts are that on 16.5.2001, the complainant/Food Inspector visited the premises of retailer at Ganj Basoda and obtained the sample of Kinley Packaged Drinking Water. The sample was sent to public analyst. The said analyst opined that the sample is misbranded as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the "PFA Act"). Based on the said report, the instant complaint was filed. The court below took cognizance of the matter and other party was summoned. In the said case, the analyst's report dated 25.6.2005 is filed (Annexure P/4). In the report, it is mentioned that "sample is clear free from suspended matter". However, in the opinion, it is mentioned that sample is "misbranded".

(3.) Shri Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel contended that the public analyst's report is vague. It does not specify as to how product was 'misbranded'. Thus, the petitioner filed an application for discharging him under Section 245(1) CrPC (Annexure P/9).