IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36085 of 2007 SUNIL KUMAR Son of Sri Narayan Sah, Proprietor M/s Jeevan Jyoti Store Main Road, Begusarai, District Begusarai …. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2.Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Begusarai, District Begusarai 3. Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL), Mumbai -400020 ….Opp. Parties ----------- 10- 12.10.2009 Heard Mr. Vijayendra Nath for the petitioner, and Mr.Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused of Case No.4C2/07, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, wherein cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) read with Rules thereunder. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this application may be indicated. The petitioner is a retail dealer of grocery items and also sells tea. Opposite party no.2 filed a complaint petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, alleging therein that the complainant’s representative had seized tea in packed polythene pack, manufactured by the Brook Bond. The same was referred to the Chemical Analyst for a report whether or not the packing contained adulterated tea. The Food Analyst submitted his report dated 25.9.2006, stating therein that the same does not contain adulterated tea, but it suffers from the following defect:- “Logo for veg. is not fixed on proper site label.” - 2 - In view of the report, cognizance was taken against the petitioner and has been summoned for trial. Hence this quashing petition. 3. The matter was laid before a learned single Judge on 27.9.2007, who has been pleased to refer the matter for consideration of a Division Bench because the learned Judge disagreed with the order dated 21.3.2007, passed in Cr. Misc. No.7533 of 2007 (Abhishek Abhiranjan @ Babu vs. State of Bihar), which was disposed of with the following observation :- “Admitted fact is that Logo has to be given by the manufacturer and not by the seller. Therefore, no criminal liability can be fastened to the seller of Parle-G Products.” The learned single Judge in the present case has disagreed with the proposition of law, and referred the matter to the Division Bench with the following observations :- “….Thus, in my considered opinion, it would amount to laying a blank proposition of law as has been done in the case of Abhishek Abhiranjan (supra) that the moment there is misbranding of Logo, only the manufacturer alone can be held to be liable. An eventuality in fact in such a case cannot be ruled me that the manufacturer would come out with its case that the seized articles were in fact never manufactured by it and the seized goods was a spurious product for which the seller from whose premises the goods without logo had been recorded is only liable for prosecution and punishment for violation of the relevant provision of law under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.” In other words, according to the learned single Judge, if the proposition of law as stated in the order of Cr. Misc. No.7533 of 2007 is accepted, then there will be no scope for the plea that the seized sample was an adulterated product at the hands of the dealer. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered - 3 - the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the learned single Judge has raised a valid issue, but the matter can be disposed of on shorter ground. Law is well settled that the court should desist from deciding an issue if the matter can be disposed of on a different ground. In the present case, the manufacturer has not been impleaded as a co-accused. In such a situation, the present petitioner would be deprived of the benefit of the manufacturer’s version if it states that the sample seized by the complainant is a genuine product and was manufactured by the company. In such a situation it would not be appropriate to allow the prosecution to continue against the present petitioner. 5. In the result, this application is allowed, the order of cognizance against the petitioner is hereby quashed, and the prosecution pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Case No.4C2/07, is hereby terminated. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl