The central legal point established is the need for evidence to determine if a food item qualifies as a primary food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, before quashing a complaint and summoning order.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of complaint No.262 date 15.07.2010 filed under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the PFA Act') (Annexure P3) and the summoning order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

2. This petition is pending since 2010 and the same was admitted on 20.08.2015 and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the impugned complaint was filed by the Government Food Inspector with the allegation that on 31.05.2010, he visited the store of Reliance Fresh where the petitioner was the Store Manager/In-charge. The Government Food Inspector purchased rice from the store and prepared a spot memo in Form No.VI which was signed by two witnesses namely Neeraj Kumar Singla and Abhinav Kumar. A perusal of this Form No.VI which is attached as Annexure P1 with the present petition show that the Food Inspector had purchased 900 gms of rice for analysis from a Public Analyst. Thereafter, the Food Inspector separated the sample in 03 equal parts and were sealed as per the procedure under the PFA Act and one part was sent to Public Analyst on 31.05.2010 for analysis, which was received on the same day by the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst submitted a report dated 15.06.2010 and according to this report, he found 03 living and 03 dead insects (sursari). The report of the Public Analyst is attached as Annexure P2. As per this report, the Public Analyst reported that the sample was in a fit condition for analysis and the analysis started on 31.05.2010 and completed on 14.06.2010 and as per this analysis, 03 living and 03 dead insects (sursari) were detected without mold growth. The Public Analyst gave his opinion that since the contents of the samples are insects infested, hence, it is adulterated. It is further stated in the complaint that on receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the present complaint was filed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 15.07.2010 summoned the petitioner to face the trial punishable under Section 16 of the PFA Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid complaint and the summoning order.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following arguments:-

1. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Section

2 of the PFA Act, adulterant is defined as under:-

“2. Definitions. – In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, –

(i) “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for the purposes of adulteration;

(ia) “adulterated” – an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated –

(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;

(b) to (l) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(m) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health:

Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.

Explanation. – Where two or more articles of any primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food –

(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and

(b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause;”

5. Counsel for the petitioner has furt