The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate sample analysis, the need for evidence connecting the accused with the offense, and the procedural requirements under Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-3, has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against him by the respondent/complainant in C.C.No.739 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pondicherry, for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the alleged contravention of Section 7(1) r/w 2(ia)(m) of the Act.

2. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that there are certain contravention of mandatory provisions contemplated under the Act and Rules and therefore, the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed as the same is vitiated by the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contemplated under the Act.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent, viz., Senior Food Inspector inspected the premises of A-1, viz., “Sakthi Ganapathi Super Market” at No.151, Kamarajar Street, Veeman Nagar, Pondicherry, on 10.05.2005 at

12. 35 noon and taken samples of “Purita Vanaspathi” paying a sum of Rs.250. It is submitted that the Senior Food Inspector claimed to have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act for taking the sample and sending the same to the Public Analyst of Pondicherry. It is further submitted that it is seen from the Public Analysts report that the said sample contains more free fatty acids than the permissible limit, as per Clause A.19 of the Appendix B to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", and the Public Analyst opined that the said sample is adulterated. On the basis of such analyst report, the present complaint is filed against A-1/the vendor, A-2/the dealer and A-3/the petitioner, who is the manufacturer of "Purita Vanaspathi".

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds for quashing the proceedings in this case:

.(i) There is absolutely no connection between the petitioner/A-3 (manufacturer) with the vendor or even the dealer as both the vendor and dealer are not found in possession of the warranty with a view to fasten the liability of the manufacturer, the petitioner/A-3 herein in this case.

.(ii) As per the report of the Public Analyst, Pondicherry, there is a mention about the quantity of the sample, batch number, date of manufacturing and the name of the manufacturer etc. The said details were also found in the complaint, but on the application of the petitioner herein, while the sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, for analysis, the Director, Central Food Laboratory, had mentioned that neither the batch number nor the date of manufacture were available on the label and he has also further stated only 200 ml i.e.179.4 gms were available for analysis and as such the sealed packets of the samples which have been sent do not tally with the samples lifted by the Food Inspector. Consequently, the opinion given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory does not pertain to the samples lifted. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory and analysed and thereafter, the Central Food Laboratory gives a report, such report supersedes the report of the Public Analyst by virtue of Section 13 (3) of the Act. Therefore, this serious infirmity vitiates the entire trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Chetumal V. State of M.P. in 1981 SCC (Cri.) 632 in support of his contention.

(iii) In view of Section 20-A of the Act, the manufacturer could be implicated only after the commencement of trial and after taking the evidence which discloses the involvement of the manufacturer, and before that implicating the manufacturer as one of the accused is a pre-mature one and even on this ground the complaint is liable to be quashed. The l