IMPORTANT POINT
Samples of edible oil collected from premises of petitioner were found to be conforming to prescribed standard of quality laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Laws not cognizable.

ORDER (ORAL)

Asutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. D.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has put up a challenge to the order dated 12.8.2011 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Danapur in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 73/11 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 419, 420, 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Food Inspector on 5.3.2011. There was a suspicion that the edible oils, of which the petitioner is a dealer, were adulterated or spurious samples of mustard oil and palm oil were taken and were sent for analysis by a public analyst. It was also alleged that the petitioner was selling mustard oil in tin containers with a different brand name.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is the report of the public analyst. There are two reports with respect to the samples of palm oil and mustard oil which were seized from the premises of the petitioner. The report clearly indicates that the samples of edible oil collected from the premises of the petitioner were found to be conforming to the prescribed standard of the quality laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the containers of edible oils, which were seized from the premises of the petitioner, were released in his favour later by the court below.

5. Considering this aspect of the matter, the order taking cognizance dated 12.8.2011 is held to be unsustainable in the eyes of law. The same is quashed.

**********