Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 787 (JHR)

R. N. Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-22

D.K.SINHA

body2008
Judgment OK Sinha, J.- The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the impugned order dated 12.11.2003 whereby and whereunder the learned C.J.M. Seraikela took the cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 in C/2 Case No. 69 of 2003 and further quashment of entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners pending before the S.D.J.M. Seraikela. 2. The brief fact of the case as narrated in the official complaint was that on 6.9.2003. the Food Inspector (O.P.NO.2) herein, Jamshedpur collected samples of three packets of Trishul Brand Gram Besan and some Arhar Dal from M/s Tayo Canteen against receipt and forwarded the samples to the public analyst. The public analyst by his report dated 29.9.2003 stated that the samples of Trishul Brand Gram Besan were found misbranded as such the prosecution report duly signed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer dated 5.11.2003 was presented before the C.J.M. Seraikela Kharsawan on the basis of which cognizance of the offence was taken on 12.11.2003. 3. Mr. Bajaj, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners were the employees of Tayo Rolls Limited, a Division of Tata Steel and the Company had bona fidely purchased Trishul Brand of Gram Besan from "M/s Bridhi Chand Chiranjilal Sale Depot" which was manufactured by "Narain Trading Company". Jugsalai. Jamshedpur and the Trishul Brand Gram Besan was purchased by Tayo Rolls Limited to be used in the canteen for preparation of Pakaura (snax) etc. 4. The Sr. Counsel specifically argued that it was not the allegation against the petitioners that either of them had manufactured or packed the Trishul Brand of Gram Besan. Admittedly, the petitioners had no hands in manufacturing or that the packed samples of Trishul Brand of Gram Besan were misbranded by the petitioners. 5. Advancing his argument. Mr. Bajaj submitted that memorandum of the Food Inspector (O.P. NO.2) which was sent to the public analyst revealed that the samples were sent to the analyst under clause (c)(ii) of sub-section (1) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 and not under clause 9 of Section 2 just to find out as to whether the sample collected was adulterated or not. 1954 and not under clause 9 of Section 2 just to find out as to whether the sample collected was adulterated or not. Had it been the case of misbranding, it Could have been detected by the Food Inspector himself by verifying the printing materials on packed samples and there was no need of sending the samples to the public analyst. 6. Mr. Bajaj pointed out that no sanction was accorded for the prosecution of the petitioner No. 1 R.N. Singh as required under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the other hand the sanction was accorded in respect of prosecution of the petitioner NO.2 K.H. Gandhi, only because of the fact that he was Senior Manager of the Company, though having no hand at all in the manufacturing or packing of the alleged Besan and that the samples were not collected from his custody. 7. Mr. Bajaj exhorted that the packet of Besan as kept in the canteen for workers was not for the purpose of sale but for the purpose of preparing food articles like "Pakaura" etc. and the canteen was maintained under the provisions of Factories Act under the welfare activities, therefore, the finding of the analyst that the packet of the Besan was misbranded did not come within the mischief of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as against the petitioners. 8. Finally, Mr. Bajaj submitted that the written consent was accorded by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Seraikela Kharsawan only against the petitioner NO.2 K.H. Gandhi on the same day on 5.11.2003 when the prosecution report was signed by him, both without application of mind. It would be evidently clear from the written consent that it was accorded only against one person but prosecution report was submitted against both the petitioners and the C.J.M. without application of his judicial mind, took the cognizance of the offence against both the petitioners herein. In that manner the order granting sanction did not indicate due application of mind by the. Sanctioning authority in public interest and similarly cognizance order also indicates non-application of judicial mind. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the canteen was inspected on 6.9.2003 by the Food Inspector (O.P. NO.2) who collected three packets of Trishul Brand Gram Besan on payment of cost of Rs. Sanctioning authority in public interest and similarly cognizance order also indicates non-application of judicial mind. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the canteen was inspected on 6.9.2003 by the Food Inspector (O.P. NO.2) who collected three packets of Trishul Brand Gram Besan on payment of cost of Rs. 54/from the petitioner Ram Naresh Singh against the receipt but no sanction was accorded for the criminal prosecution of Ram Naresh Singh which could be evident from the receipt issued to the Food Inspector. 10. The proercution report (Annexure1) disclosed the allegation against the petitioners that they violated the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on the basis of which cognizance of the offence was taken against both the petitioners in the aforesaid offence, though sanction for prosecution was not accorded by the sanctioning authority against the petitioner No.1 R.N. Singh, In-charge of Tayo Canteens and in this manner I find that sanction was accorded without application of mind and similarly the C.J.M. also did not apply his judicial mind while taking the cognizance of the offence against both the petitioners though the sanction was accorded against the petitioner NO.2 K.H. Gandhi, Senior Manager (P&A) Tayo, Gamharia. 11. I find that the Food Inspector had collected three packets of Trishul Brand Gram Besan having 500 grams containing in each packet on payment of cost on 6.9.2003 from the petitioner R.N. Singh, the In-charge of Tayo Canteen and that the samples were sent to public analyst, Jharkhand for chemical analysis of the samples. On examination of the sample, the public analyst, Mineral Area Development Authority by its report (Annexure-2) dated 29.9.2003 found that the samples of Trishul Brand Gram Besan were misbranded due to not mentioning the requirements of packaging related to Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Bajaj that the petitioners were riot the manufacturers and were running canteen under the provisions of Factories Act, for the welfare of the workers and therefore, requirement to observe Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was mandatory for the manufacturer and not to the purchaser. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Bajaj that the petitioners were riot the manufacturers and were running canteen under the provisions of Factories Act, for the welfare of the workers and therefore, requirement to observe Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was mandatory for the manufacturer and not to the purchaser. M/s Tayo Company had purchased the packed and branded Besan and the petitioner R.N. Singh had disclosed the names of the manufacturer and the dealer from where Trishul Brand Gram Besan were purchased. 12. Section 16 of the Act deals with penalties for the contravention of the provisions of the Act which speaks:- "Subject to the provisions of subsection (1-A), if any person-(a) Whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sales, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food- (i) Which is adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause(m) of clause (ia) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that Section or the sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made there under or by an order of the Food (Health) Authority, he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may ~xtend to three years and with fine which shall not be les~ than one thousand rupees." 13. Admittedly, the samples of Trishul Brand of Gram Besan collected from Mis Tayo Canteen were not the imported food products rather, it were bona fidely purchased from Mis Bridhi Chand Chiranjilal Sale Depot, manufactured by Narain Trading Company, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur and this fact was not disputed in any manner. The Food Inspector (O.P. NO.2) consistently mentioned that samples of Trishul Brand Gram Besan 'Were collected from M/s Tayo Canteen but it was never alleged that the same were manufactured or sold by the petitioners. The Food Inspector (O.P. NO.2) consistently mentioned that samples of Trishul Brand Gram Besan 'Were collected from M/s Tayo Canteen but it was never alleged that the same were manufactured or sold by the petitioners. There appears substance in the argument that the Besan were purchased for its use in preparing snax and the samples were collected from the canteen, established under Factories Act for the workers, therefore, the petitioners cannot be held liable for contravention of the provisions- of Rule 32 of P.FA Rules, 1955 as the duty was cast upon the manufacturer to ensure that the 'packaging and labeling' Rules on manufacturing and packaging of food products must be properly followed. I further find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the cognizance of the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) against the petitioners is unsustainable under law. The liability cannot be fasten upon the petitioners who purchased the Trishul Brand Gram Besan for M/s Tayo Canteen for preparation of snax for the workers in the welfare scheme under the Factories Act. Yet, it was imperative for the In-charge of M/s Tayo Canteen to be careful so that misbranded food products could not be used in the canteen to prevent health hazards to the workers. 14. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions the criminal proceeding of the petitioners would amount to miscarriage of Justice and misuse of the process of the Court, therefore, unsustainable. Their criminal proceeding in C/2 Case No. 69 of 2003 pending before the S.O.J.M., Seraikela, Kharsawan including the cognizance order passed therein is set aside and this Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed.