JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

The petitioners assail the order dated 13.07.2006 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter to be called as “the Act”, in short, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri in 2(c) CC No.2 of 2006.

FACTS

2. The allegation as per the prosecution report is that on 19.08.2005 one N.N. Dash, Food Inspector inspected the canteen situated inside Balasore Alloys Ltd. and at that time petitioner no.1 being in-charge of the said canteen was present. The Food Inspector verified the stock of food articles for sale. Then suspecting chilly powder kept in an open diba to be adulterated, the complainant took sample of the chilly powder and sent same to public analyst for chemical analysis. After chemical analysis, the sample of chilly powder was found to be adulterated and accordingly prosecution report after being sanctioned was filed under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act. After receiving the prosecution report, the learned Magistrate basing on the materials available on record, by order dated 13.7.2006 took cognizance of the offence under Section 16 of the Act against the petitioners. Challenging the said order, the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the employees of Balasore Alloys Ltd. and the Food Inspector of Balasore Alloys Ltd. visited the canteen of the said factory where he found that an open diba containing chilly powder. Suspecting the same to be adulterated, he seized the same observing the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder.

4. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate further submitted that the said chilly powder was kept for its use in the canteen, but not for sale. According to him, the sanction order of the prosecution clearly spells out that the same was stored for human consumption but not for sale. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that the word ‘store’ as appears in Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Act only denotes store of adulterated articles of food for sale other than stored for human consumption. Since in the present case the chilly powder was seized from the canteen where there is no question of sale of chilly powder, but the same was used to be in curry for human consumption and as such, does not penalize a person under the Penal provisions of the Act. According to him, since the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order, the same is liable to be quashed. While submitting so, he has relied upon the decisions reported in the case of Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2014 SC 1390 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon and others, (1976) 1 SCC 546.

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submitted that the Food Inspector being authorized to seize the suspected article and he being duly authorized, verified the canteen of Balasore Alloys Ltd. and found that the chilly powder was kept open. Since the chilly powder to be used in the canteen for human consumption even not for sale but for serving the people of the company, the same was found to be adulterated and accordingly, the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence rightly. He further submitted that there is absolute observance of the Act and Rules framed thereunder so far as search and seizure of chilly powder from the canteen of the petitioners concerned. It is further submitted that the said chilly powder was examined by the chemical examiner and it is reported that the same was adulterated. According to him, there was proper sanction of the prosecution for which the offence is prima facie made out against the petitioners and therefore, the present criminal miscellaneous application is liable to be dismissed.

DISCUSSIONS

6. It is admitted fact that the petitioners are the employees of Balasore Alloys Ltd. at Bal