Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. vs State Of Haryana on 10 November, 2000
ORDER V.K. Bali, J.
1. The prayer contained in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is to quash the complaint, Annexure P/3, summoning orders, Annexures P/8 and P/9 proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad and also the order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, dated 19.2.1983, vide which the petitioner has been impleaded as an accused.
2. Brief fact of this case are that on 28.12.1983, the Food Inspector Shri R.R. Jindal along with two other persons visited the shop of Ram Chand son of Atma Ram, Karyana merchant at Thana Road, Fatehabad, and found in his possession seven boxes of 'Milk Food' (Sapan) for public sale and each tin contained 500 gms. A notice under Form VI was given to the seller and three boxes of milk food were purchased by the Food Inspector. All the samples were duly sealed and paper slips bearing code number and signatures were put on the boxes. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis in a sealed packed and the Public Analyst, vide its report dated 31.1.984, opined that the sample gives ash insoluble in Hydrochloric Acid 0.07% against the maximum prescribed standard of 0.05%.
3. Mr. Sawhney, learned senior counsel, representing the petitioner, sought time to file additional affidavit. Permission was granted to him and affidavit dated 29.9.2000 has been filed.
4. It is, inter alia, pleaded in the affidavit afore-said that the standard of quality of Infant Milk Food has been given in Item No. A. 11.02.18 in Appendix' B' of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. At the time of filing of this petition for quashing, the requirement was that Ash Insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric acid should not be more than 0.05%. However, during the pendency of the above said petition, standard of quality of Ash Insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric Acid has been changed in the year 1991, raising specification from 0.05% to 0.1%. Thus, according to the changed standard of quality of Infant Milk Food, no case of food adulteration is made out against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel representing the State sought adjournment on couple of occasions to verify the contents of the affidavit mentioned above and today he confirms that what has been stated in paragraph 2 of the affidavit is correct.
6. On the basis of the facts pleaded in para 2 of the affidavit and relying upon the judgments in the cases of Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 617, B.L. Kohli v, Delhi Administration, 1987(2) CLR 324, Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444, Sunder Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1974 FAC 21, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mai Ram alias Bhaya Ram, 1974 FAC19, Charanjit v. State of Punjab, 1985(1) FAC 90, and Sant Ram and another v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 476, it is contended by Mr. Sawhney that even though the prescribed standard of quality of Infant Milk Food has been changed during the pendency of the case, the advantage of the same has to be given to the petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The State counsel indeed admitted the proposition of law laid down in the above said cases.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this petition deserves to succeed, in view of the changed prescribed standard of quality of Infant Milk Food. As such no case is made out against the petitioner. This petition is, thus, allowed and complaint Annexure P/3 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner are quashed.
8. Petition allowed.