Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2096 (JHR)

Swati R. Paradkar v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-19

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moti Gope, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 03.08.2018 status report has been received annexing a copy of the order dated 28.03.2012 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 663 of 2009. However, since the order dated 28.03.2012 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 663 of 2009 was in relation to the petitioner in that particular case, it cannot be construed to mean that the entire criminal proceeding has been quashed and in fact the criminal proceeding has been quashed, so far as the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 663 of 2009 is concerned. 3. In the background facts stated above, this court now proceeds to consider the factual and legal aspect of the present case. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by initiation of criminal proceeding in connection with C2-2619 of 2007 including the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The allegation made in the complaint petition reveals that the Food Inspector, Jamshedpur had on 22.05.2007 visited the Main Godown, Steel Workers Welfare Society (S.W.W.S.), Bistupur, Jamshedpur and collected sample of Lijjat Papad. It has been alleged that the sample which has been sent to the Public Analyst, MADA, Dhanbad was reported as mis-branded as sample of Lijjat Papad was not labeled in terms of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint was instituted by the Food Inspector, in which cognizance was taken which is under challenge in the present application. The question of mis-branding was considered by this Court in the case of two of the co-accused persons, who moved this court in Cr.M.P. No. 663 of 2009 and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “Mr. T.R. Bajaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is true that those words were required to be written in bold letters, were not in bold letter over the packets of the Papads, but those words are there over the packets and hence, it can be taken to be sufficient compliance of Rule 32 of the said rule and under this situation, the petitioners never warrants to be prosecuted. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision rendered in a case of M.D. Anand Aqua Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. { 2010 (3) PLJR 31 has been referred to. Misbrand has been defined in Section 2(ix) of he Act, which reads as follows :- (ix) “misbranded” - an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded- (k) if it is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made there under. Therefore, the case of the prosecution also falls within sub-Section (k) of Section 2(ix) of the Act. Rule 32 of the Act envisages that month and year in capital letters upto which the product is based for consumption should be provided in the following manner. The manner indicates “BEST BEFORE ..............MONTH AND YEAR”. Since the aforesaid clause was not written in capital letters over the packets of the Papads, seized from the go-down, the prosecution case has been lodged. It is never the case that clause which was required to be there under Rule 32 was never there over the packets rather it was there in small letters and, therefore, there was a sufficient compliance of Rule 32. The same view was taken by the Patna High Court in the case referred to above. Under such situation, prosecution of the petitioners seems to be unwarranted. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution of C 2 Case No.2619 of 2007 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.07.2007, pending in the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is hereby, quashed.” 5. The petitioner was the Managing Director of Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad and is being prosecuted on the ground of misbranding of the product. However, considering the fact that the case of the co-accused persons have been quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 663 of 2009 wherein it was held that there was sufficient compliance of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thus there was no offence of misbranding committed by the Company, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner is allowed to continue. 6. 6. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application stands allowed and the entire proceeding in connection with C2-2619 of 2007 including the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is hereby quashed and set aside.