Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The samples from the recovered substances were got examined from the office of the Food Analyst Punjab which revealed the following facts:-

Sr. Product Minimum prescribed Result of Report/ No. stands sample findings
1. Paneer Percent milk fat of dry 43.41 % Substandard matter 50 %
2. Mixed milk Percent solid not fat 8.5 % 6.9 % Substandard
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apart from the aforesaid FIR, criminal complaint No.336 dated 30.7.2010 under Sections 7 and 16 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been filed (Annexure P-3). The Food Inspector had taken in his possession eight plastic drums containing about 150 litres of mixed milk. After making necessary samples, sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, who annexed his report that the sample contains 4.0% of Milk Fat and 5.88% of Milk solids not fat against the minimum prescribed limit of 4.5% and 8.5% respectively. The sample was found to be adulterated. The allegations in the FIR are identical but after getting the public analyst's report, challan was presented and charges have been framed under Sections 15 of 30 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:138750 2023:PHHC:138750 272/273 and 420 IPC and the petitioner is facing trial in the FIR as well as the criminal complaint. The issue whether police can register an FIR for offence punishable under Sections 420/269/270/271 IPC had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2009(1) FAC 238. In that case, ASI Bhagwan Dass on a secret information went to the shop of the accused and purchased Paneer and the Paneer was sent for public analysis and it was found to be adulterated. FIR was registered under Sections 420/269/270/271 IPC and merely a complaint No.59 dated 3.5.2008 under Section 16 of Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act was filed by the Food Inspector. While quashing the FIR, the Court has observed that it was not a case that the Paneer was fake or there was any intention on the part of the accused for cheating public. The Paneer was found to be adulterated and therefore, complaint under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act could be filed and FIR cannot be lodged. In paragraph 8 the Court observed as under: "So far as the fact that Paneer is fake one, there is no report to this effect on the file. The Patna High Court in the authority in case Satish Mishra Versus State of Bihar and others, 2007(1) FAC 393 has held that when there is a special statute under the Prevention ;of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 then by adding sections of IPC, FIR cannot be launched. Keeping in view the fact that Paneer was not found to be fake but was found to be not conforming to the prescribed standard, the proceedings under the Criminal Act cannot continue. So, FIR No.305 dated 6.11.2007 under Sections 420/269/270/271 IPC, Police Station, City Samana and further proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed."
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."

(emphasis supplied) In Shiv Kumar Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-5675-2008, decided on 12.09.2008, this Court held as under:-

"The petitioner filed the present petition for quashing the said FIR on the grounds that the allegations against the petitioner fall within the ambit of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is further pleaded that under Section 20 of the said Act, no prosecution can be launched without the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorized by the Government in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or the State Government. It is further pleaded that the sample sent for analysis contained 25.32% milk fat of dry matter against minimum prescribed standard of 50%. The Paneer recovered from the accused at the most can be said to be adulterated. So, action can be taken only under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and FIR under Sections 21 of 30 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:138750 2023:PHHC:138750 420, 269, 270 and 271 IPC cannot be proceeded with. A prayer has been made for quashing the said FIR.