Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1708 (PNJ)

Deepa Salt Co. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2013-12-18

RITU BAHRI

body2013
JUDGMENT Ms. Ritu Bahri, J.: - This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos. M-583 and 591 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, being arisen out of the same complaint. 2. Both these petitions are for quashing of complaint No.132 dated 04.08.1993 (Annexure P-2) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 3. On 22.06.1993, the Food Inspector inspected the premises of Dharam Pal (since deceased) and found in his possession 40 packets of Om Brand Deepa iodized salt. He took a sample out of the same and divided it into three equal parts. One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana. The report of the Public Analyst (Anneure P-1) is as under:- “1. Physical appearance : Sample is in sealed poly Packet having all the required particulars mentioned in it. 2. Moisture : =2.40% 3. Sodium chloride on : 94.40% Dry wt. has 4. Matter insoluble in Water or dry wt. basis : 0.60% 5. Matter soluble in : 5.00% Matter other than Sodium chloride on dry Wt. basis Iodine : 41 PPM And am of the opinion that the sample gives sodium chloride on dry wt. basis 94.40% and matter soluble in water other than sodium chloride on dry wt. basis 5.00% against the minimum and maximum prescribed standard of 96.0% and 6.0% respectively.” 4. After receiving the report of Public Analyst, complaint (Annexure P-2) was filed against the petitioner(s) under Section 7 of the Act, alleging that the sample gave sodium chloride on dry wt. basis at 94.40% and the minimum prescribed standard was 96.0%. 5. Quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-2) is sought on the ground that there is violation of Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1995 (for brevity ‘the Rules’). The Food Inspector sent the sample in the form of packets, which were likely to be tampered with. In the report of the Public Analyst (Annexure P-1), it has been mentioned that as per physical appearance, “the sample was in sealed poly packet.” 6. In the reply, filed by the respondent, it is admitted in paragraphs 2 and 3 that three sealed poly packets of ‘Om Brand Deepa Salt iodized salt of one Kg. each were kept in plastic containers. In the reply, filed by the respondent, it is admitted in paragraphs 2 and 3 that three sealed poly packets of ‘Om Brand Deepa Salt iodized salt of one Kg. each were kept in plastic containers. They were labeled, stoppered, secured, fastened and then wrapped in strong and thick papers. It was stated that the samples were also stored in the plastic container and there was no violation of Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules. 7. Heard, counsel for the parties. 8. This issue had come up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Raman Kumar, 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 772, wherein sample of chilly powder was taken by the Food Inspector, which were wrapped in polythene wrapper and then wrapped in thick khaki paper. It was held that it violated the provisions of Rule 14, as Polythene container or khaki papers do not come within the definition of Rule 14. In paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment, it was further observed as under:- “21. In our considered view, polythene containers or a wrapper of strong thick paper cannot conform to a definition of container as contained in Rule 14 of the Rules. The polythene bags or a thick paper have got a chance of being pierced. They are most susceptible to moisture, rodents, pests and can even burst with a little more pressure put on them. Such type of containers are not in a position of being closed tightly to prevent leakage etc. A thick paper packet has the chance of even being completely wet and again is unable to prevent entering moisture into it. There are every chances of such type of containers being affected as stated above not by design but even by chance when in transit i.e. after the sample is taken by the Food Inspector in such containers and thereafter it reaches the laboratory for final analysis.” 9. The aforesaid judgment was also followed by this Court in Tilak Raj Vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. M-13837 of 1994 (decided on 10.08.2001 and M.T.R. Foods Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (2) FAC 259. 10. In the facts of the present case, it is not factually disputed that the samples were stored in the plastic container. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. M-13837 of 1994 (decided on 10.08.2001 and M.T.R. Foods Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (2) FAC 259. 10. In the facts of the present case, it is not factually disputed that the samples were stored in the plastic container. Even as per the report of the Public Analyst (Annexure P-1), it is apparent that the sample, in physical appearance, was sealed in poly packets. Therefore, there has been violation of Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules. Since the samples were not stored in accordance with Rules 14 and 16 of the rules, it was fatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in Raman Kumar’s case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, especially when the packets were not sent to the Public Analyst in a sealed container, but the same were sealed in a packet by wrapping it in strong thick paper. 12. Accordingly, impugned complaint No.132 dated 04.08.1993 (Annexure P-2) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner(s). 13. Crl. Misc. Nos. M-583 and 591 of 2011 stand allowed accordingly.