Patna High Court - Orders
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 1 August, 2018
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.57337 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -50 Year- 2005 Thana -GOVERNM ENT OFFICIAL COM P. District-
MUZAFFARPUR
======================================================
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at North Level Crossing,
Vile Parle East, Police Station- Vile Parle, Mumbai-57, through its
authorized representative namely Varushal Uttarde, Assistant Manager-
Legal, Son of Shambhu Uttarde, Resident of North Level Crossing, Vile
Parle East, Police Station- Vile Parle, Mumbai-57.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Food Inspector, Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 01-08-2018This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Prosecution Report No.50 of 2005 filed by the Food Inspector, Muzaffarpur in which summons has already been issued against the petitioner after finding a prima facie case to be made out under Section 2(ix)(j) and (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and Rule 32(e) framed under the Act the learned Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.57337 of 2017 (2) dt.01-08-2018 2/3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 08.08.2005.
The case, in brief, is that that on 12.05.005, the Food Inspector, Muzaffarpur asked Pankaj Kumar, owner of P.R.Sales, to give sample of Parle Product in required quantity on market rate for analysis but the shopkeeper gave samples without charging any price and after analysis the samples of Parle Crack Jack Biscuit were found misbranded.
It has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the sample sent for analysis was bearing batch no.AP BL BC, which fact would be apparent from the article sent for analysis and the memorandum of Public Analyst, as contained in Form VII, in term of Rule 17 of the Rules made under the Act. It has been contended that the analysis report is patently erroneous, as the sample sent has been declared to be misbranded, only for the reason that the same does not bear batch number, whereas the documents annexed to the prosecution report itself would suggest that batch number was mentioned on the sample of the biscuit collected from M/s P.R.Sales.
Learned counsel for the State prays for three weeks' time in order to enable him to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter.
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.57337 of 2017 (2) dt.01-08-20183/3
As prayed for, put up after three weeks.
In the meantime, further proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.C-50 of 2005 corresponding to Trial No.370 of 2017 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur shall remain stayed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./-
U T