Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 328 (ALL)

VINOD GIRI v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-01-27

RAJESH CHANDRA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case No. 121 of 2008, under Section 7/16 Food Adulteration Act, PS Adampur, District J.P.Nagar in State v. Vinod Giri, pending in the Court of JM, Hasanpur, District J.P.Nagar. It has further been prayed that the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be stayed during the pendency of this application. 2. From the record, it appears that the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the applicant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused applicant was summoned vide Courts’ order dated 22.8.09 and the case is pending against him in the lower Court. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the sample of milk was taken and was sent for chemical analysis. The public analyst on the ultimate analysis of the sample found that in the sample of the mixed milk, the milk fat is less by 36 percent whereas the milk solids non fat is less by 25 percent. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to argue that since the milk was not found injurious for the health hence the sample is not covered within the definition of adulterated as provided in Section 2 (ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 5. I considered over the matter. I feel that the argument is misplaced. Sub-clause (a) of Section 2(ia) lays down that if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality, which it purports or is represented to be then the article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. 6. In the present case, the accused applicant represented the milk as mixed milk which on analysis was not found of the quality which it was represented to be, hence the milk sold to the Food Inspector comes within the definition of adulterated. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that the milk was not for sale and that the report of the public analyst was not sent by the CMO to the accused applicant as provided in Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 8. I considered over this argument also. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that the milk was not for sale and that the report of the public analyst was not sent by the CMO to the accused applicant as provided in Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 8. I considered over this argument also. I feel that these are the questions of fact requiring evidence and cannot be decided in these proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 9. It was also argued that the Food Inspector did not procure the public witness at the time of taking the sample and on this ground alone the proceedings may be quashed. 10. I have given my considered thought to this argument also and I feel that the same is not acceptable. The prosecution case cannot be thrown merely on the ground that at the time of taking the sample of the mixed milk, no public witness was present. The effect of absence of the witnesses at the time of taking the sample will be considered by the Court at the trial. 11. In view of the entire above discussions, I am satisfied that no case for quashment of the proceedings is made out. The application is therefore rejected. ————