IMPORTANT POINT
Tea containing iron fillings within the tolerance limit specified by the Government is not adulterated and prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot be launched for selling such tea.

JUDGMENT

T.R. Handa, J.-In all these five petitions, the petitioners seek the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them and others under Section 7 read with Section 1 6(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Government Food Inspectors and which proceedings are presently pending in different subordinate Courts. The main ground urged in support of all these petitions being the same, it is considered expedient to dispose of all these petitions by this common order.

2. Three of these petitions, namely, Criminal Revision Nos. 78 to 80 of 1979 are at the instance of M/s. Brooke Bond Tea India Limited Calcutta, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea under the trade name of 'Brooke Bond'. Samples of Brooke Bond tea marketed by this petitioner were taken by the Food Inspectors from the various dealers/vendors who have been impleaded as respondents in these petitions. These samples were of course taken and dealt with in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. On being analysed by the Public Analyst, these samples were found to contain traces of iron filings though otherwise they conformed to the specifications and standard prescribed for tea in the relevant rule, namely, para A-14 of Appendix B of the Rules made under the Act. The Public Analyst in his various reports while mentioning the detention of iron filings in these samples refrained from opining if the samples were adulterated in terms of Section 2 (i-a) of the Act.

3. The Food Inspectors, however, assumed that as per reports of the Public Analyst the samples were adulterated and hence they filed complaints against the vendors/dealers impleading the present petitioner also as co-accused under Section 2u of the Act. The details of the complaints in which this petitioner has been joined as co-accused are as under;

Complaint No. 5-1 of 1979 pending in the Court of J.M.L.C. Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi (H.P.)

Complaint No. 25/1 of 1979 pending in the Court of J.M.L.C. Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur (H.P.)

Complaint No 6-1 of 1979 pending in the Court of J.M.L.C. Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi (H-P.)

4. Similarly M/s. Lipton Tea (India) Ltd., Calcutta, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1979 is also a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea under its trade name 'Lipton'. Sample of the tea supplied by this company was also picked up by the Food Inspector from the shop of one Amar Chand Gupta who claimed to have purchased such tea from the dealer M/s. Dhani Ram Amrit Lal of Sarkaghat who is petitioner in Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) No. 223 of 1979. Analysis of this sample by the Public Analyst also revealed that it contained traces of iron filings though otherwise it conformed to the standard prescribed for tea in the relevant rule. In this case also the Public Analyst did not opine if the sample was adulterated within the meaning of the Act. The Food Inspector, however, assuming that as per this report the sample was adulterated, filed his complaint under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sarkaghat, against Shri Amar Chand Gupta, M/s. Dhani Ram Amrit Lal and M/s. Lipton Tea (India) Ltd.

5. In all these complaints the concerned Judicial Magistrate apparently acting' in a mechanical manner summoned the persons who had been arrayed as respondents in the complaints.

6. Now it is not disputed by the petitioners that the tea out of which the samples in question were purchased by the Food Inspectors from the various vendors had been marketed by them through their dealers. Nor it is disputed that the samples were taken and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The sole contention of the petitioners which is common in all the cases is that in terms of