JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P-8 to P-13 are taken on record. Main case. The challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the complaint No.333 of 2015 dated 20.4.2015, Annexure P-1, summoning order dated 15.6.2015, Annexure P-6, and order dated 30.4.2019, Annexure P-2, dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioners.

CRM-35478-2022

Factual Aspect:

2. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioners are not the manufacturers but are only sellers of the products that are manufactured by various companies, they being in the business of whole sale. He submitted that a complaint came to be filed by Ashwani Kumar, Food Inspector, Amritsar, on 20.04.2015 against the petitioners and the manufacturer of moong masala vadi (hereinafter referred to as 'the product'), based on a sample drawn on 23.09.2013 from the premises of the petitioners. In this regard, while making a reference to the averments of para 5 of the complaint, Annexure P-1, he submitted, that four samples out of the purchased 2000 grams of the product, in equal parts were drawn out by the complainant. One out of the said samples weighing 200 grams, was sent to the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh on 24.09.2013, the report of which was received on 03.10.2013, Annexure P-3.

3. At that stage, the learned Senior counsel, made a pointed reference to a fact that he submitted, is vital to be noticed here that the shelf life of the product expired on 11.12.2013, which according to him, is the admitted case between the parties.

4. The second sample weighing 250 grams was sent for reanalysis to the Referral Food Laboratory, Gaziabad on 17.04.2014, the report of which is dated 15.05.2014, Annexure P-4.

5. It is further submitted that the complaint was filed on 20.04.2015 i.e. after a delay of 1 year and 7 months from the date of inspection i.e. 23.09.2013, the day when the product was purchased, samples were drawn, one of which was sent for examination on 24.9.2013. While referring to the complaint, he submitted that there were three accused arrayed therein, two of whom are the petitioners before this Court, shown to be sellers and third as the manufacturer. The relevant para 16 of the complaint, in this regard, reads thus:-

6?'That the accused No.1 being Best Price (Bharti Wallmart Pvt. Limited), G.T. Road, Mannawala, Amritsar, (seller) accused No.2 Navin Sharma being Manager, Best Price (Bharti Wallmart Pvt. Limited), G.T. Road, Mannawala, Amritsar (seller) and accused No.3 Amritsarian Di Hatti, near Pindi Street, Chaura Bazar Ludhiana, through its proprietor being manufacturer of Moong Masala Vadi have committed a violation of F.s.S. Act 2006. So action may kindly be taken against him under Sections 26 and 27 punishable under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.'

6. A further reference is made to paras 5 and 6 of the complaint to submit that it is averred therein that 2000 grams of the product was purchased against receipt signed by the accused and attested by the independent witness Nirmal Singh. A specific emphasis is made to the averments in para 6 thereof to the effect that it is mentioned therein, that the sample drawn was divided in equal parts and each sample packed was separated tightly.

7. A further reference in this regard is made to the report of the Food Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, dated 3.10.2013, Annexure P-3, which reads thus:-

'Analysis report Refer Rule 2.4.2(5)

(i) Sample Description Contents received in a sealed polythene pack pasted with a printed paper slip.

'ii) Physical Appearance of Sample/container (analysis done on 24.9.2013) Ten living and four dead susries detected. No Mould growth.

iii) Label Declaration The Paper slip is printed as GRD Moong Masala Vadi, Wt. 200 gm, Mtd. Dt.11.08.2013