Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Bhole Industries ( Dholpur) And Anr vs State Of Raj And Anr on 15 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6730 / 2017
1. M/s Bhole Baba Industries (Dholpur) Private Limited Office 506,
Shakuntala Building 59, Nehru Palace, New Delhi Factory 50-57,
RIICO Industrial Area, Growth Center Dholpur, Raj., Through
Nominee Prahlad Singh.
2. Prahlad Singh S/o Ramrekh Singh Nominee and Assistant
Manager (Quality Assurance) M/s Bhole Baba Industries (Dholpur)
Private Limited Factory 50-57, RIICO Industrial Area, Growth
Center Dholpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP.
2. Food Inspector Jaipur I, Chief Medical and Health Officer Jaipur
I, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrinath Kishore Gupta Mr. Jitendra Bajaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Judgment / Order 15/01/2018 Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The order dated 13.10.2011 whereby CJM, Jaipur District has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 7(ii) read with Section 16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the basis of the complaint filed by the food inspector Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh, has been challenged by way of this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegation made in the complaint (Annexure-1), the sample of Skimmed Milk Powder was found mis-branded as per the public analyst report dated 16.07.2010. Relying upon the judgment of Madras High Court in P. Robert Immanuel and another Vs. The (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6730/2017] State Represented by the food inspector passed in Criminal O.P. No. 9783/2008, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of misbranded sample could not have been lavelled on the basis of the report given by public anaylst. Food inspector himself must have mentioned this fact in the complaint. It is none of the business of the public analyst to report about such misbranding. His further contention is that as per circular issued on 08.02.2017 by Commissioner Food Safety-cum-Director Public Health, Government of Rajasthan, directions have been issued to all the concerned officers to withdraw the complaints filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which are not relating to the offences of serious nature. Counsel refers to the report of public analyst (Annexure-1) which says that the sample of Skimmed Milk Powder bearing No.L(H)A code and SL No.E-7364 was misbranded under Section 2(ix) k and rule 32(b) (vi) of PFA rules, 1955. He submits that as per Section 16 of the Act of 1954, the punishment for isolation of such rules extends only upto sentence for 3 months and a fine upto Rs. 500/- only and thus, is not an offence of serious nature.
Learned counsel has also taken this Court to the certified copies of the order-sheets of learned trial Court to show that the trial is still going. On 13.12.2017, only first prosecution witness Virendra Kumar PW1 has been examined and the matter is now fixed for pre-charge evidence on 29.01.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the facts stated above, the impugned proceeding for the offence of petty nature which is in regard to the violation of the rules under (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6730/2017] Section 2(ix) k and rule 32(b) (vi) of PFA rules, 1955 is required to be quashed and set aside in view of the notification dated 08.02.2017.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. On perusal of the relevant documents including the report of public analyst dated 16.07.2010, the complaint filed by the food inspector and the certified copies of the order-sheets of trial Court, it is found that the trial is continuing since the year 2011 i.e. for more than 7 years for a petty offence for violation of rule 32(b) (vi) of PFA rules and Section 2(ix) of the PFA Act 1954. This Act of 1954 has been repealed by the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. In view of the fact that the Act 1954 had already been repealed and the circular had been issued by Government of Rajasthan on 08.02.2017 to withdraw the offence of a petty nature under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 this Court finds no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings of the complaint which was filed way back in the year 2010. It is further observed that in absence of the allegation regarding misbranding of sample in the complaint itself, the matter looses its significance. It was not domain of the public analyst to make a report about sample being misbranded. The judgment rendered by Madras High Court in case of P. Robert Immanuel and another (supra) is relevant in this regard.
Taking all these facts into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the proceedings is merely an abuse of process of law which cannot be allowed to continue.
Hence the petition stands allowed and the order dated (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6730/2017] 13.10.2011 taking cognizance against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1637/2014 as also the proceedings of the case which is presently pending before the Court of Additional CJM No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan is quashed and set aside.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J.
Arun/31