Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 936 (JHR)

Manoj Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-10-10

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
ORDER This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in C IV08/2007, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as 'Act'). 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is an admitted position that the alleged article (Haldiram Super Mixture) was purchased by the Food Inspector Krishna Prasad Singh in presence of Mahesh Pandey, another Food Inspector, Civil Surgeon Office, Ranchi and sent it for chemical examination by public analyst. It is submitted that as per Section 10 (7) of the Act, the Food Inspector was required to call an independent witness at the time of purchasing of said article. It is submitted that in the instant case, the Food Inspector had not complied aforesaid provision, hence, entire prosecution will vitiate. It is also submitted that as per Sections 14 & 19 of the Act, petitioners, who are Vendors, cannot be prosecuted because it is an admitted position that they purchased the said articles from Manufacturer Haldiram Bhujiyawala Ltd. 3. On the other hand, Sri Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that as per Section 10 (7) of the Act, while taking any action under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act a Food Inspector is required to call a person and took his signature. The said provision did not say that the said person must be an independent person. He further submits that only because the person, who has been called by Food Inspector, was another Food Inspector, it cannot be said that he is not an independent person, unless it is shown that the said person has any personal interest in prosecution of accused person. It is further submitted that the order of cognizance cannot be quashed at this stage only on the basis of Annexure3 i.e. receipt issued by Haldiram Bhujiyawala Ltd. It is submitted that Sections 14 & 19 of the Act deals with the defence of accused persons, which they may take during the trial after proving certain facts. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reads as under: (7) Where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of subsection (1), subsection (2), subsection (4) or subsection (6), he shall [call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures]. 5. From perusal of the said provision, I find that a Food Inspector, while taking action under Clause (a) of SubSection (1) of Section 10 of the Act, is required to call one or more person to remain present, while such action is taken and take his or their signatures. The said Section did not provide that the said person must be an independent person. Only requirement of the aforesaid provision is that the said action must be taken in presence of a person. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the Food Inspector took action under Clause (a) of SubSection (1) of Section 10 of the Act in presence of Mahesh Pandey, who happens to be another Food Inspector. In my view, only because said Mahesh Pandey was working as a Food Inspector, he cannot be branded as an interested witness. It is well settled that a witness can be held to be interested, if he has some personal interest in prosecuting of accused. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the said Mahesh Pandey has any personal grudge against the accused persons. Under the said circumstance, in my view, at this stage aforesaid Mahesh Pandey (who is also working as Food Inspector in Civil Surgeon Office, Ranchi) cannot be branded as an interested witness. Thus, I find no substance in the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Under the said circumstance, in my view, at this stage aforesaid Mahesh Pandey (who is also working as Food Inspector in Civil Surgeon Office, Ranchi) cannot be branded as an interested witness. Thus, I find no substance in the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Now coming to the next contention, it is relevant to mention that in support of it petitioners relied upon Annexure3, showing that they purchased the articles in question from Haldiram Bhujiyawala Ltd. From perusal of Annexure3, I find that the same was signed by a person, who is claiming himself to be the authorized signatory of Haldiram Bhujiyawala Ltd. The name of said person has not been disclosed, nor petitioners brought any material on record to show that who is that person and who has authorized him to sign on behalf of Haldiram Bhujiyawala Ltd. Under the said circumstance, at this stage, prosecution of petitioners cannot be quashed only on the basis of Annexure3, unless it is proved that signatory of Annexure3 was authorized by the Company sign on its behalf. Moreover, from bare perusal of Section 19 of the Act, it is clear that it deals with the defence of accused persons and Sub-Section (2) of Section 19 specifically provides that when a Vendor proves certain facts then only he can be exonerated from the penal liabilities prescribed under the Act. Under the said circumstance, the second contention raised on behalf of petitioners is premature. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.