IMPORTANT POINT
The court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Summoning an accused under Section 20A requires a prima facie inquiry and legally admissible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur and the resultant proceedings against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. It has been asserted that Food Inspector, Manjit Singh, inspected the shop of Raj Kumar-respondent No.2 on 22.08.2009 and found 30 Dibbas originally sealed each weighing 500 ml of Ghee kept for sale manufactured by Maa Vaishno Food Products Malanpur Bhind (M.P). He took a sample after serving a notice in Form VI. Three original sealed packets were sent to Public Analyst Kandaghat, who issued a report No.743 dated 30.09.2009 stating that the sample was adulterated. The report was received in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur, which was forwarded to the Food Inspector for further necessary action. The Food Inspector obtained the consent for launching the prosecution and filed a complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Hamirpur on 04.01.2010, which was assigned to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. IV for disposal as per the law. The notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was issued to Raj Kumar for getting the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory; however, Raj Kumar did not avail the opportunity afforded to him and filed an application under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for impleading respondent No.3 as an accused. This application was allowed and respondent No.3 was impleaded as an accused. Respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 20(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for impleading the petitioner as an accused. This application was allowed on 03.03.2015 and the petitioner was impleaded as accused No.3. An application under Section 20(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be filed during the trial when it has been established that the sale of adulterated article was made and the article remained intact. No evidence was adduced by respondent No.2 that Ghee was purchased by him through Bill No.68 dated 05.05.2009 or he had stored it and sold it in the same State as was purchased by him. It was necessary for him to adduce such evidence to connect the manufacturer, distributor or dealer with the commission of the offence. It was also to be proved that the adulterated article was kept in the same condition, in which it was purchased. This could have been done by making the statement on oath and by producing other evidence. No such evidence was led and this minimum requirement was not satisfied. The Court also did not conduct any inquiry and straightway proceeded to summon the petitioner. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was responsible for selling the ghee and ensuring its quality. No one was examined by the prosecution before the appearance of the accused no. 2. The application was premature and could not have been filed before the commencement of the evidence. The application was moved in the year 2015 after six years of taking the sample. The application was barred by limitation provided under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. The name of the petitioner was ascertainable from the dealer-respondent No.3, whose name was disclosed by respondent No.2. The prosecution after the lapse of six years is likely to cause great harassment and the application was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was nowhere mentioned in the complaint that Ghee was heated to change it into a liquid state or it was stirred, which was necessary to make it homogenous. The Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated because the Butyro Refractometer Reading at 40 degrees centigrade is 47.2 against the minimum and maximum prescribed standard of 40 to 43. There cannot be an equal distribution of the Ghee to make the sample homogenous without heating and s