Reserved
Criminal Misc. Application No. 24385 of 2007
........
V. P. Bhardwaj
Vs
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble A. K. Roopanwal, J.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for
quashing the summoning order dated 1.5.2002 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1663 of 2005, State of U.P.
Vs. V. P. Bhardwaj, u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No. 17, Etah.
It appears from the record that Criminal Complaint Case No. 1663
of 2005, State of U.P. Vs. V. P. Bhardwaj, was filed by Mr. Y. A. Khan,
Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Parishad, Etah, against the applicant under
section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954, punishable u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954. It was alleged in the complaint that O.P. No. 2, Mr. Y. A. Khan,
Food Inspector, inspected the Milk Collection Center, Mohabbatpura
Jalesar, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, on 26.6.1999 at about 10.00
A.M. and found Jugendra Singh collecting/ exhibiting mixed milk for sale.
The applicant is the owner/ producer/ whole seller of milk. Mr. Y. A. Khan
took sample of the milk and after completing the required formalities sent
it for chemical analyses. On analysis it was found to be adulterated.
It is pertinent to mention here that the milk was not for public sale
and was to be supplied to M/s Hindustan Liver Limited, Etah.
On the complaint cognizance was taken by the concerned
Magistrate vide order dated 1.5.2002.
Being aggrieved by the cognizance order the present application has
been moved for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as the
entire proceedings of the complaint case.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the
parties and I have perused the same.
Heard Mr. G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.
Samit Gopal and Mr. Tahir Nizami, learned counsel for the applicants,
2
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been contended by Mr. Chaturvedi that the milk, sample of
which is alleged to have been taken, was not meant for sale and the
applicant was not selling the same. He further submitted that the act of
storing the adulterated article of food would be an offence only if the
storing is for sale. Simplicitor storing of an adulterated article of food
does not come within the preview of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954. It must be specifically shown that it was for sale.
To the above, it was argued by learned AGA that the milk of which
the sample was taken was for sale and therefore, the applicants had
contravened the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
and thus there is no point to quash the proceedings of the complaint
case.
A look at the record would reveal that at the time of alleged
sampling of milk it was specifically said by the applicant to the Food
Inspector that the milk was not for public sale and it was meant for
sending to the factory of Hindustan Liver Limited for further
manufacturing of milk food items. This averment made at the time of
alleged sampling could not be belied by any evidence on the record.
There is also no evidence to suggest that the applicant was selling milk or
exhibiting milk for sale to the public. Thus, this contention of Mr.
Chaturvedi is liable to be accepted that the milk collected by the Food
Inspector was not meant for public sale. If the milk was not for public sale
and the applicant was not selling milk at the time of the alleged purchase
then inspite of the fact that the applicant was having the license for the
sale of milk cannot bring the case under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 as has been held by this court in 1998(36) ACC
591, Jagdish Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.
Since all the applicants or any one of them was not selling milk,
hence there was no sale of milk and thus, the question of prosecuting the
applicants for selling adulterated milk does not arise at all. At the best it
can be said that the milk stored by the applicants at the collection center
was adulterated because ice was added to it. Unless the said milk was for
public sale by the applicants, there is no question of prosecuting them.
3
In view of the above, I am of the view that the complaint is
misconceived as the applicants were never selling milk. The prosecution
of the applicants is therefore, arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be
quashed.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and the summoning order
dated 1.5.2002 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint
Case No. 1663 of 2005, State of U.P. Vs. V. P. Bhardeaj and others, u/s
7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 , pending in the
court of A.C.J.M. Court No. 17, Etah, are hereby quashed.
Dt/-15.7.2010
Pcl