IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 13.02.2026 Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through G.F.I. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. G. S. Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

********

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) seeking quashing of Complaint (number not mentioned), titled as State through GFI vs. Gurdeep Singh, filed under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA Act’), which is pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, SBS Nagar, along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent through Govt. Food Inspector on the allegations that on 17.12.2008, he along with another member of his team namely Dr. Ashok Guru had visited the area of village Rahon. The grocery store of the petitioner was inspected by them. 04 kgs. of turmeric powder was found to be kept in his grocery store, which as disclosed by the petitioner was meant for human consumption and public sale. After disclosing his identity to the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of turmeric powder for a sum of Rs.45/- and obtained receipt from the petitioner. Three samples were drawn and were wrapped in thick khaki paper, which was labelled. One sample was sent to Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh through a special messenger. Two packets of the seized samples were handed over to the office of LHA-cum-Civil Suregeon, Nawanshahr. As per the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab, rice starch was found to be mixed in the sample and, therefore, the contents of the sample were declared misbranded and adulterated. By alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1) of the PFA Act, prayer had been made for taking action.

3. After presentation of the complaint in the Court, notice was issued to the petitioner and feeling aggrieved, he has filed the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the respondent and the subsequent proceedings initiated on the basis thereof are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed due to the reason that the quantity of the admixture present in the sample was not quantified nor was it specified in the report of the Public Analyst, Punjab that admixture of rice starch was injurious to health or was unfit for human consumption. It is further argued that mere presence of foreign matter in the sample did not make it unfit for consumption unless it was shown that some diseases were likely to be caused due to that reason.

5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no allegation in the complaint that before taking sample of the turmeric powder, it was made homogenous. It was taken in the form of packets in clear violation of rules. The possibility of the samples to be tampered with cannot be ruled out as it is the own case of the prosecution that the samples were wrapped in thick khaki paper and not in containers as required under the rules. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned complaint and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed.

6. Learned State counsel has argued that the petition is devoid of any merit as the report of the Public Analyst clearly establishes the presence of rice starch in turmeric powder, which is a prohibited extraneous substance under the prescribed standards of the PFA Act, thereby constituting adulteration per se. It is further argued that proof of actual injury to health is not a prerequisite for an offence under Section 16 of the PFA Act and mere