Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ombir And Another vs State Of Haryana on 21 November, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc. No.M-36483 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:November 21,2012
Crl. Misc. M No. 36483 of 2009 (O&M)
Ombir and another
..........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ..........Respondent
Crl. Misc. M No.2839 of 2010 (O&M)
Rahul Yadav ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.Advocate General,Haryana
**
Sabina, J.
Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two petitions, would be disposed of, filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of the FIR Crl.Misc. No.M-36483 of 2009 (O&M) 2 No. 192 dated 2.7.2009 registered under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955(`the Act' for short) and under Sections 272/273/420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short `IPC') (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Dharuhera District Rewari alongwith all consequential proceedings arising thereto.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the samples of milk were drawn by the Food Inspector from the tankers which were under the care of petitioner-Ombir from the Chilling Centre of Orient Agro Private Ltd. Dharuhera. Four samples of milk were drawn. The said samples were sent for chemical analysis. As per the report of the Public Analyst, it was found that the samples were not of prescribed standard in view of item No.A.11.01.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ` PFA Rules'). Thereafter, the Food Inspector had filed four complaints against Ombir and Puran under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ` PFA Act'). FIR in question was registered against the petitioners and the same was liable to be quashed as the Food Inspector had already resorted to the remedy under the PFA Act. Learned counsel has submitted that no criminal offence under IPC was made out in the present case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has oppsed the petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed.
In the present case, the Chilling Centre Oriental Agro Crl.Misc. No.M-36483 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Pvt. Ltd. was checked on 28.5.2009. Four samples of milk were drawn from the tankers which were under the care of petitioner- Ombir. The samples were sent for chemical analysis. The Public Analyst, vide its report Annexures P5 to P8, opined that the samples did not contain the requisite milk fat and milk solid as per the prescribed percentage in table below item No.A.11.01.11 of PFA Rules. Thereafter, four complaints under the PFA Act were filed by the Food Inspector against Ombir and Puran.
The offence of food adulteration is to be dealt with by the special statue i.e. under the PFA Act. The provisions of PFA Act are self contained and are sufficent to punish the offender qua commission of offence under the PFA Act . Punishment has been provided qua violation of provisions of PFA Act under Section16. Section 16(1)(a)(i)(1A) of the PFA Act reads 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 sale, 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)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Crl.Misc. No.M-36483 of 2009 (O&M) 4 (b-g)xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 (l) (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, milk samples drawn from the tankers under the management of petitioner-Ombir were found to be not as per the specification provided under the Rules in this regard. Complaints have already been filed against Ombir and Puran under the PFA Act. The accused cannot be tried in two criminal cases qua the same offence. Prosecution of the accused has already been Crl.Misc. No.M-36483 of 2009 (O&M) 5 launched by filing a complaint under the PFA Act. Hence,proceedings initiated against the petitioners, on the basis of FIR in question are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. FIR No. 192 dated 2.7.2009 registered under Sections 7 of the Act and under Sections 272/273/420 IPC (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Dharuhera District Rewari alongwith all consequential proceedings arising thereto are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 21, 2012 arya