Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Raheja vs State Of Punjab on 10 July, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM No. M-10221 of 2010 (O&M) - 1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-10221 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.7.2012
Raj Kumar Raheja ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 428 dated 19.9.2009 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420, 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was not maintainable as the food articles alleged to be adulterated did not fall under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. No offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was made out in this case. So far as the offences under Section 272, 273 IPC were concerned, the same were non-cognizable and no FIR could be registered qua the said offences. If any offence was made out in the present case, the said CRM No. M-10221 of 2010 (O&M) - 2- could be under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short). As per the said Act, the complaint could be filed by the official for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
As per the FIR a raid was organized on the premises of the petitioner on the basis of information given by Dr. Y.S.Banga, Health Officer. In the store, on the backside of the house of the petitioner, adulterated cheese and khoya were recovered. FIR in question was registered before proceeding for the raid.
The opinion of the Public Analyst qua sample of Paneer is as under:-
"From examination of the sample herein referred to and the result obtained by analysis I am of the opinion that the Milk fat % of the dry matter of the contents of the samples marked here P-73-Sept. 09 to P-74-Sept. 09 is 43.23 & 42.59 against the minimum prescribed standard of 50%. Hence the contents of the samples are therefore adulterated."
The opinion of the Public Analyst qua sample of Khoya is as under:-
"From examination of the sample herein referred to and the result obtained by analysis I am of the opinion that the Butyro-Refractometer reading of the extract fat at 40oC of the contents of the samples marked here P-75- CRM No. M-10221 of 2010 (O&M) - 3- Sept. 09 to P-76-Sept. 09 is 47.1 and 50.2 respectively indicating the presence of foreign fat in the contents of the samples. The contents of the samples are therefore adulterated."
The offence of food adulteration is to be dealt with by the special statute i.e. under the Act. Registration of FIR without following the procedure under the Act is not permissible in law. The competent authority was required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act. The provisions of the Act are self contained and sufficient to punish a person committing offence under the Act. Punishment has been provided qua violation of provisions of the Act under Section 16.
Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (1A) of the Act read as under:-
"16. Penalties -(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-
section (1A) if any person:-
(a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sales or stores, sells or distributes any article of food-
(i) which is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority;
(ii) xxxxxxxx
(b-g) x x x x x x x x
CRM No. M-10221 of 2010 (O&M) - 4-
he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees:
Provided that:-
[(1A)] If any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes,-
(i) any article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of any of the sub-clauses (e) to (I) (both inclusive) of clause (ia) of section 2; or
(ii) any adulterant which is injurious to health, he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but, which may extend to six years and with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees."
In the present case, the prosecution case is that adulterated cheese and khoya were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are vis-a-vis specific provisions enumerated in the Act. The said Act is self contained and competent to deal with the allegations levelled against the CRM No. M-10221 of 2010 (O&M) - 5- petitioner. Hence, proceedings initiated on the basis of the FIR in question under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Indian Penal Code are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 428 dated 19.9.2009 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 420, 272, 273 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
However, it is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of any proceedings under the Act.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 10, 2012 Gurpreet