Hon'ble PRASAD, J.— The petitioner is aggrieved by the order whereby his prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance under Sec.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and issuing process has been declined.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present special leave petitions are that when the petitioner was posted as the Superintendent of District Jail, Bihar Sharif, the Food Inspector visited the jail premises and collected samples of various materials including Haldi and Rice. Those articles were stored for consumption of the prisoners. The samples so collected were sent for examination and analysis and, according to the report of the Public Analyst, Haldi and Rice were not found in conformity with the prescribed standard and, therefore, held to be adulterated. Accordingly, two separate prosecution reports were submitted alleging commission of an offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act and by order dated 18th of March, 2006 directed for issuance of process in both the cases. The petitioner assailed both the orders in separate revision applications filed before the Sessions Judge; but both were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate applications, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15527 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15471 of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. The High Court, by the orders impugned in the present special leave petitions, has dismissed both the criminal miscellaneous applications. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has filed the present special leave petitions.

3. Leave granted.

4. Mr. Nagendra Rai, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raises a very short point. He submits that the appellant at the relevant time was the Superintendent of Jail and food items which have been found to be adulterated were not stored for sale but were meant for consumption of the inmates. He submits that according to the prosecution report, these food items were not stored for sale and, therefore, the allegations made do not come within the mischief of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.

5. We have bestowed our consideration to the submission advanced and we find substance in the same. Section 7 of the Act, inter alia, prohibits manufacture and sale of certain articles of food, the same reads as follows:

“Section 7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc. of certain articles of food. – No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute-

(i) any adulterated food;

(ii) any misbranded food;

(iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence;

(iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohi-bited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health;

(v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or

(vi) any adulterant.

Explanation-For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in clause (iii) or clause (iv) or clause (v) if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale.”

6. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that Section 7 prohibits a person to ‘manufacture for sale’ or ‘store’ or ‘sell’ or ‘distribute’, inter alia, any adulterated food. Contravention of Section 7 by any person is punishable under Section 16 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act talks about the power of Food Inspector and under this Section, he is empowered to take sample of any article of food from any person selling such article. It is apt to reproduce Section 10(1) and 10(2), which read as follows:

“Section 10. Powers of food insp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document