Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1401 (PNJ)

M/s Iqbal Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-12-14

K.C.GUPTA

body2001
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint and resultant proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 26.5.1990, Food Inspector took a sample of Jagadhri gin from one Jagdish Chander, Salesman at Kalka, as alleged in the complaint. After dividing into three equal parts and after having duly sealed, one part was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh, for analysis and the other two parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority. 3. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the complaint was instituted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala and subsequently it was transferred to Panchkula. 4. Against the institution of the abovesaid complaint, the petitioner (accused) has filed the present petition. 5. I have heard Shri G.S. Sawhney, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana, for the State and carefully gone through the file. 6. The report of the Public Analyst, Annexure P-1, bearing No. 266/May/90 dated 19.6.1990 shows that the Public Analyst. Punjab, Chandigarh had reported that the sample contained suspended matter settled at the bottom. However, no added coltar dye was detected. Therefore, the sample contained only suspended matter. There is no further opinion of the Public Analyst that due to suspended matter, the gin had become unfit for human consumption. Counsel for the petitioner contended that since it had not been mentioned by the Public Analyst that due to the suspended matter in appreciable quantity, wine had become injurious to health and as such, he contended that it could not be said that it was adulterated. For this contention, he placed reliance on an authority of this Court i.e. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) RCR 113, which supported the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was also held by this Court in N.S. Jain v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 127 that since the analysing authority had not expressed the opinion that such suspension had affected injuriously the nature, substance or quality of the food article, so it had not become adulterated. 7. It was also held by this Court in N.S. Jain v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 127 that since the analysing authority had not expressed the opinion that such suspension had affected injuriously the nature, substance or quality of the food article, so it had not become adulterated. 7. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that no standard of alcoholic strength in whisky or other alcoholic beverages except toddy had been prescribed and as such, the matter did not come under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act. For this contention, he placed reliance on Krishan Lal v. The State of Haryana, 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 476 : 1990 Criminal Law Times 24, which supported the above contention of the learned counsel. He further stated that the strength of alcohol in different alcoholic beverages had been prescribed under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder and if there was any adulteration of whisky and other alcoholic beverages, then it had to be dealt under the relevant provisions of the Excise Act by following a different procedure. To the same effect is the authority of Tar Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 152, in which it was held that since the Act did not lay down any standard for alcoholic standard of liquors, so, the trial Court could not summon the petitioner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 8. Therefore, looking from any angle, I think no case is made out against the petitioner and as such, the continuation of complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is an abuse of the process of the Court. In such circumstances, the complaint in question against the petitioner is quashed.