Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
T.R.HANDA
GOPI NATH & SONS, THE MALL, SOLAN (H P) - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Cr. M. P. (M.) No. 247 of 1980
Decided On : 10/14/1980
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - MISBRANDING - LABELING - PACKAGING - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE'S ORDER - PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a firm dealing in confectionery, challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against it under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act) and the charge framed against it for selling misbranded and adulterated hard boiled sugar confectionery. The Food Inspector had purchased a sample of toffees from a vendor, who had obtained the same from the petitioner. The Public Analyst's report indicated that the sample was adulterated as its quality fell below the prescribed standard for toffees. The petitioner contended that the sample was not adulterated or misbranded since it was sold as hard boiled sugar confectionery, not toffees, and the label on the package clearly indicated its contents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge against the petitioner was groundless. The sample was analyzed as toffees, not hard boiled sugar confectionery, and the standard applied was incorrect. The label on the package clearly indicated that the contents were hard boiled sugar confectionery, and the petitioner had sold the product as such. The court also held that the Magistrate had erred in framing the charge without properly examining the complaint and applying his judicial mind to the material on record.
Issues: 1. Whether the sample was adulterated or misbranded. 2. Whether the Magistrate had properly applied his judicial mind in framing the charge.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sample was not adulterated or misbranded. The Public Analyst had applied the wrong standard in analyzing the sample, and the label on the package clearly indicated the contents. 2. The court held that the Magistrate had erred in framing the charge without properly examining the complaint and applying his judicial mind to the material on record. The Magistrate had a duty to ascertain whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and to determine the nature of the offense for which the petitioner should be summoned.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings and the charge framed against the petitioner.
T.R. Handa, J.—The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against it under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the Act) as also the charge framed against it under Sec. 16 (1) (i) read with Sec. 7 of the Act in such proceedings.
2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business of general merchandise and confectionary at Solan. It is also the local distributor (whole-sale agent) of the products of Messrs Mortons Confectionery and Milk Products Factory which is owned by Messrs Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Limited, Calcutta. The petitioner firm sold four packets of one kilogram each of hard boiled sugar confectionery vide bill No. MOR 50 dated 25-6-1979 to Messrs Goyal Provision Stores, Parwanoo. Each pf the packets was sealed in a polythene package. These packages when sold by the petitioner to the aforesaid firm Goyai Provision Stores contained a label with the following printed matters : "MORTON B-G. Special Hard Boiled Sugar Confectionery Artificially Coloured Permitted Colouring Agents used Net weight (including Weight of Immediate Wrappers) : 2 kg. Packed During : 6/79 Code No. 14-3 Maximum Price Rs. 28-20 Taxes Extra Manufactured by : Morton Confectionery and Milk Products Factory (Prop ; Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. MARHOWRAH—841418 (Bihar) Regd. Office : 9/1 R. N. Mukherji Road, Calcutta-700001
3. On 22-8-1979, the Food Inspector Solan Shri B. L. Justa visited the premises of aforesaid Goyal Provision Stores, Parwanoo which is owned by Shri Narender Parkash and after disclosing his identity expressed his desire to buy a sample of Toffees for the purposes of analysis under the Act. Shri Narender Prakash then sold to the Food Inspector 900 grams Toffees which were taken out from one of the sealed packages sold by the petitioner firm to Messrs Goyal Provision Stores, Parwanoo and Which package contained a label with the above mentioned specifications printed thereon. In other words although the Food Inspector had demanded a sample of Toffees from M/s. Goyal Provision Stores, the latter sold to the Food Inspector the hard boiled sugar confectionery from one of the sealed packages which had been supplied by the petitioner firm.
4. At the time of taking the sample it was disclosed by the vendor Goyal Provision Stores to the Food Inspector that the former had purchased the package out of which the sample had been sold from the present petitioner and hence a notice under Sec. 12 of the Act was issued by the Food Inspector to the present petitioner also.
5. The sample was purchased and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and as a result of the analysis the Public Analyst submitted the following report; FORM III [See Rule 7 (3)] Report by the Public Analyst Report No. 480
6. I further certify that I have/have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows :
1. Labeling —The name and business address of the manufacturer or packer is not mentioned on the wrapper.
2. Ash Sulphate — 1.0%
3. Ash insol. in dil Hcl. — 0.1%
4. Red sugars as dextrose — 11.6%
5. Sucrose — 67.0%
6. Fat — 0.2%
7. SO2 — Absent
8. A Col. Matter — Nil. and I am of the opinion that (1) the name or business address of the manufacturer or packer is not mentioned on the label (2) The sucrose content is in excess by 7.0% than the maximum prescribed standard and the percentage of fat is deficient by 95% than the minimum prescribed standard.
7. On receipt of this report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector filed a complaint under Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sec. 7 of the Act against the vendor M/s. Goyal Provision Stores, Parwanoo as also the dealer, the petitioner firm, alleging therein that the sample was found adulterated/mis- branded.
8.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
