JUDGMENT
S.S. Byas, J.
1. The State has come up Under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur dated February 18, 1987 by which he set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22-7-1982 and discharged the accused-respondents from the offences Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. Briefly recalled the relevent facts are that the Enforcement Inspector, Bharatpur lodged a complaint against the accused-respondents for the offences under the aforesaid Acts, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur. It was stated there in that the District Supply Officer visited the flour mill of the accused-respondents on 9-11-1981, and took the samples of Maida, Suji and Resultant Atta. The samples were sent for analysis and on analysis the Resultant Atta was found adulterated because it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purety. The accused-respondents put appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and raised two objection before him (1) the Enforcement Inspector was not authorised to file complaint Under Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and (2) no standards of purety were prescribed in respect of Resultant Atta under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the ‘Rules’). It was further ragitated that as per condition VIA of the licence granted to the accused persons, they could commit the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 only when the Resultant Atta was found adulterated and not otherwise. The objections did not find favour with the Chief Judicial Magistrate and he repelled them. The accused went in revisions which was beard and he disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur The same objections were raised before him The objections found favour with him. He held that in the Rules, no standards were prescribed in respect of the result Atta. The Enforcement Inspector was not a competent person to lodge complaint Under Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As the Resultant Atta could not be held to be adulterated, no term of the licence granted to the accused persons under the Wheat Roller Flour (Licensing and Control Order 1957 was breached or violated by them. Therefore, no offence was made out against them Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The revision was consequently allowed and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was quashed. The complaint filed by the Enforcement Inspector was dismissed and the accused-respondents were discharged. The State has now approached this Court Under Section 482 Cr PC for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. K.N. Sharma and Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi & Mr. T.P. Sharma learned Counsel for the respondents. It may be stated that there is no pronouncement of this Court on the question involved in this proceedings,
4. The learned Public Prosecutor could not demur the position in Saw that a complaint for the offences Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act can be lodged only by a person authorised Under Section 20 of the said Act. Admittedly he Enforcement Inspector was not authorised Under Section 20 of the said Act to launch the prosecution against the accused. The Court, therefore, could not tack cognizance of the offence Under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act, 1964 against the accused. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this respect is justified and calls for no interference.
5. It was strenuously contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that Atta and Resultant Atta are the products obtained by milling or grinding wheat. As such Atta as it stood before the amendment introduced on 26th Feb., 1983 would include Resultant Atta also. It was further argued that by the amendment introduced in the Rules on 261-1983 the words ‘Atta or Resultant Atta’ were substituted for the word ‘Atta’. It was argued that this amendment in the Rules is sufficient to show that ‘Atta’ or Resultant ‘Atta’ is Atta for all purposes under the rules. The same standards of purety have been prescribed by the aforesaid amendment for Atta or Resultant Atta. As such it should be taken that the sample of the Resultant Atta taken from the business premises of the accused persons must conform with the standards prescribed for Atta prior to the amendment.
6. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents that it was only after the amendment made in 1984 the Atta was made to include Resultant. Atta and the some standards of purety were prescribed for Atta or Resultant Atta. This amendment renders no help so prosecution. If Resultant Atta and Atta as one and the same thing, there was no meaning in introducing the words ‘Resultant Atta’ by the amendment made in February, 1983. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Nandram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1984 (1) FAC 221 in which a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court took that Atta are different articles of food. Reliance was further placed on the definition of ‘wheat products’ given in the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (for short the Licensing Order’) in which Atta and Resultant Atta have been mentioned as wheat products.
7. I have given my utmost consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar.
8. The pertinent question arising for deliberation is whether Atta and Resultant Atta should be taken to be one and the same article of food for the purpose of the applicability of the Rules so as to apply the prescribed standard of purety for Atta to that of the Resultant Atta. As the matter stood before February, 1983, Atta is defined in the Rules means the course product obtained by milling or grinding Atta. The words ‘Resultant Atta’ were not there in the Rules before February, 1983. Atta as defined in the Rules is the direct product obtained by milling or grinding the wheat. The Resultant Atta is not directly obtained merely by milling or grinding the wheat. It is obtained generally in the process of preparing the Maida or Suji or Rawa. In other words what remains out of preparing the Maida and Suji from wheat is the Resultant Atta. In the Rules we further find not only Atta but also Fortified Atta and ‘Paushtik Atta’. Thus the Rules speak about the many kinds of Atta viz. Atta. Fortified Atta and Paushtik Atta. Therefore, the Resultant Atta could not be taken to be Atta before February, 1983. It appears that when the courts refused to take Resultant Atta as Atta, the words Resultant Atta were added and introduced by the amendment made in February, 1983. It is now after February, 1983 that standards of purety have been prescribed for Resultant Atta. It is again for the first time in February, 1983 that Resultant Atta was inserted in A-18-01 of the Rules.
9. There is one more reasoning to fortify my view. In the Licensing; Order wheat products” defined in Clause 2(e) includes Maida, Atta, Suji, Rawa, Resultant Atta, and Bran. This definition shows that Atta and Resultant Atta are not the same things just as Maida or Atta or Suji or Rawa are not the same things. The use of words ‘Atta’ and ‘Resultant Atta’ in the definition of wheat products makes it manifest beyond any shadow of doubt that they are different products of wheat. In Nand Ram’s case (supra), ft learned Single Judge held that the standard prescribed for Atta cannot be supplied to Resultant Atta as they are different and distinct products of wheat. I find myself in complete agreement with the view expressed in Nand’ Ram’s case.
10. Since no standards of purety were prescribed for Resultant Atta in the Rules as it stood in 1981, the standards prescribed for Atta in A-18-01 cannot be made applicable to Resultant Atta. The approach of the learned Addl Sessions Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. The impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in dismissing the complaint and discharging the accused is correct and calls for no interference.
11. An offence Under Section 3/7 of the EC Act. 1955 is made out when a person contravene any order made Under Section 3 of this Act. Licence was granted to the accused-respondent in Form-II mentioned in the schedule appended with the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957. Term VI-A of this licence reads as under:
VI-A “The licensee shall not manufacture any wheat product of a standard of quality lower than the standard of quality prescribed in respect of that product in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, nor shall he contravene the provisions of any other law relating to foodstuffs for the time being in force.
12. A plain reading of this term makes it amply clear that the quality of the wheat products manufactured by the licenced could be of the standard of quality prescribed under the Rules, 1955. In other words, if the wheat products manufactured by a person is found of a quality lower in standard than the prescribed standards of quality in the Rules, he then only can be said to have committed the breach of Term VI-A. In the instant case, the Resultant Atta as I have held above cannot be taken to be adulterated under the Rules. It cannot be, therefore, said that the accused had committed any breach or violated the requirements of Term VI-A of their licence. As such no offence Under Section 3/7 of the EC Act, 1955 was made oat against accused.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no force in this application Under Section 482 Cr. PC. It is consequently dismissed.