Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hindustan Lever Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 October, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005
Date of Decision:October 6 ,2010
Hindustan Lever Ltd. ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.R.K.Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab
Mr.Dinesh Kumar,Advocate for
Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6
**
Sabina, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short`Cr.P.C.') for quashing of criminal complaint dated 25.3.2003 (Annexure P3) filed by the State through Government Food Inspector, Jalandhar complainant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (`the Act' for short) alongwith other proceedings arising out of the said complaint. Crl.Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005 2
The case of the complainant, as per the complaint reads as under:-
"1. That I Dr. Harjot Pal Singh, complainant have been appointed as Govt. Food Inspector vide Punjab Government Gazettee Notification No. E.7(1) Pb/2001/3315, dated 13 July, 2001 and have been authorised to institution prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide Punjab Govt. Notification dated 3rd August, 2001.
2.That on 27.6.2002, I alongwith Dr.Harjit Bharti, Medical Officer, SHO, Apra, Distt. Jalandhar visited/inspected the premises of Branch of Snowman Frozen Foods Ltd., at Vill.Ganna, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandahr, where accused No.1 Shri Sanjay Mulgaonkar was found present in the premises of Branch of Snowman Frozen Foods Ltd. Vill. Ganna, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar, who disclosed that he is the branch Manager of Snowman Frozen Foods Ltd. V. Ganna, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar and the said Branch is owned by the accued No.2 and 3, and they all are the responsible for the day to day work and conduct their concern/firm. Accused No.1 was having about 300 patties of Kwality Walls Chocolate Ice cream kept in Cold Room for sale to the public for human consumption.
3.That Shri Mehtab son of Shri Kayam C/o Evergreen, Transport, Delhi was present at the spot and he was joined as Public witnes to the food sampling proceedings.
4.That I disclosed my identity to the accused No.1 as Govt. Food Inspector and showed my intention to take the sample of Kwality Crl.Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005 3 Walls Chocolate Ice Cream Cahoot for analysis. The complainant (myself) served the accused No.1 a notice on form No. VI in writing which was duly signed by accused No.1 Shri Sanjay Mulgaonkar and the same was duly signed by me and duly attested by Dr.Harjit Bharti, MO and Shri Mehtab, the abovesaid witnesses. The form no. VI was duly received by the accused No.1 Shri Sanjay Mulgaorkar aforesaid.
5.That the complainant purchased 750 Ml. Of Kwality Walls Chocolate Ice Cream on the payment of Rs.80/- against a valid receipt. The receipt was duly signed by the accused No.1 and by me and duly attested by Dr. Hrjit Bharti, MO and Mr. Mehtab, aforesaid witnesses.
6.That the patties of the Kwality Walls Chocolate Ice Cream were having the following labels:-
Mkted.by : Hindustan Lever Ltd. 165.166, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai.
Mfd. By: ICICI Food Products Ltd. B-12, Lawrance Rd., New Delhi-110035.
Pkd./Btch no. 20TL 04-02 Best before 12 months from Mfg. (at-18 C or below)
7. That the purchased 750 ml. Kwality Walls Chocolate Ice Cream was put into a dry and clean Jug and left to thaw and with the help of a long handled stirrer (dry and clean) made homogenious stirring 5 times clockwise and 5 times anticlock wise from top to bottom and vice versa then 75 drops of 40% Formalin put into it and mixed, then divided into three equal parts i.e. 250 ml.,each Crl.Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005 4 and put into three neat and clean Bottles. Each sample portion was stoppered tightly, labelled, secured, fastened and wrapped in a strong thick paper. The edges of the strong thick paper were pasted on the sides of the Bottles with the help of gum. A paper slip duly signed by the Local Heatlh Authority, Jalandhar having Sr. No. 92040, Code No. 144 PL/2002, pasted on each sample portion of Kwality Walls Chocolate Ice Cream with the help of gun lengthwise covering the mouths of each sample portion/Bottles and further secured by means of strong thread, then the each portion was sealed at the spot at five distinct places bearing the seal impression `HPS'
8. That the signatures of the accused no.1 was taken partially on the paper slip of Local Health Authority and partially on the wrapper of each sample portion and I also signed in the similar manner. Then the signatures of the witnesses were taken on each sample portion as per the PFA Rules.
9. That the accused No. 1 was asked to disclose, from where the abovesaid Kwality Walls chocolate Ice Cream was purchased but he did not disclose the same.
10. That the spot memo was prepared at the spot which was duly signed by the accused no.1 and also signed by me and duly atttested by Dr. Harjit Bharti, MO and Sh. Mehtab aforesaid witnesses:-
11. That on reaching the office of the Local Health Authority Jalandhar in the evening, on the same day, I prepared five copies of Memorandum on form No.VII and three seal impressions of the Crl.Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005 5 seal used to seal the sample were affixed upon it.
12. That one sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh alongwith a copy of Memorandum on Form No.VII bearing seal impression of the seal, used, in a sealed packet through special Messenger Shri Raj Kumar, SSK Class IV office of Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar on the same day in the evening.
13. That a separate sealed envelop containing form No.VII bearing seal impression of the seal used was also sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh through the same Special Messenger.
14. That the remaining two sample portions of Kwality Walls Chocolate Ice Cream and two copies of Form No.VII having seals intact were deposited with the office of Local Health Authority, Jalanhdar on the same day in the evening.
15.That I, complainant Dr.Harjot Pal Singh, received the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, through the Local Health Authority, Jalandhar, which shows tht the sample is adulterated. The opinion of the Public Analyst is reproduced below:-
"that the Milk fat & Total solis of the contents of the sample are7.07% & 34.98% against the minimum prescribed standard of 10.0% & 36.0% respectively. Hence, the sample is adulterated "
16.That the accused have committed an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As such Crl.Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005 6 necessary action may kindly be taken against the accused No. 1 to 3 being the sellers, accused No. 4 and 5 being the Marketer and accused No. 4 and 7 being the manufacturers of Kwality Walls Chocolate Ice cream according to law as the all are responsible for day to day sale, work and conduct of their firms/concerns. The complaint is hereby submitted for disposal in accordance with law, please.
17. That the complaint being a public servant and have to perform multifarious duties, is unable to attend this Hon'ble Court on each and every date of hearing of this case, hence my presence on each and every date of this case may kindly be exempted and the APP attached with this Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed to appear on my behalf. However, I (complainant) may be summoned as and when so required." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the food articles had been manufactured in April, 2002 and it was mentioned on the food article "Best before 12 months from the manufacture". The complaint had been filed after the shelf life of the food article had almost expired and, hence, valuable right of the petitioner to get the second sample tested from a laboratory had been jeopardized. Learned counsel has further submitted that the article sold by the petitioner was a frozen desert and no standard had been prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (`Rules' for short) for the said food article at that time and hence, the said food article fell within the definition of Proprietary Foods under Rule 37-A of the Rules. There was no violation of Rule 37-A of the Rules. Crl.Misc. No. M-36198 of 2005 7
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
A perusal of the form VI filled in by the Food Inspector at the time of drawing the sample reveals that the sample was drawn from the food article which had been manufactured in April, 2002 and it was best before 12 months from the date of manufacture at minus 18 degree Celsius or below. The complaint in question was, however, filed on 25.3.2003. Thus, the shelf life of the food article had almost expired. The valuable right of the petitioner to get the second sample tested from a Laboratory had, thus, been jeopardized. On this ground alone, the complaint in question deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 25.3.2003 as well as further proceedings arising out of the said complaint are quashed.
( Sabina ) Judge October 6 ,2010 arya