Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 46 (PNJ)

Kashmir Singh Dairywala v. State Of Punjab

2001-01-10

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint (copy Annexure P.1) filed by the State through the Government Food Inspector under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). 2. It has been stated before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the report of the Central Food Laboratory (copy Annexure P.3), no offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act would be made out against the accused-petitioner and, as such, the complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 3. A perusal of the order dated April 6, 1998 passed by the learned Magistrate, which has been reproduced in paragraph 4 of the petition, would show that on receipt of the report of the Central Food Laboratory, according to which the sample of milk was found to be in the prescribed norms, the learned Magistrate observed that since the complaint was also filed under Rule 50 of the said Rules, the case was adjourned for recording the pre-charge evidence of the complainant. 4. From the above, it would be clear that the learned Magistrate was conscious of the fact that as per the report of the Central Food Laboratory, no offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made out against the accused-petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate adjourned the case for recording pre-charge evidence in respect of the violation of rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 5. A perusal of Rule 50 of the above-said Rules would show that no person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any article of food etc., except under the licence. In the present case, the allegations against the present accused-petitioner levelled in the criminal complaint filed by the Government Food Inspector would show that the accused-petitioner had not obtained any licence for selling the milk and, as such, he had violated the provisions of Rule 50 of the said Rules. That being so, in my opinion, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. That being so, in my opinion, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The stay already granted shall stand vacated.