IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53337 of 2007 MANAGING DIRECTOR, LUMBINI BEVERAGE PVT. LTD., H-2, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI-844101 ….. ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, BHOJPUR, ARA …. COMPLAINANT – OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 7.5.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 31.8.2004 taken for the offences u/ss.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in Complaint case No.58(O)/2004 Trial No.2376 of 2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. The prosecution report of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur is that he had visited the shop of one Akhilesh Kumar on 21.4.2004 at 1.20 P.M. and purchased one 300 ml Pepsi cold drink allegedly manufactured by the petitioner, which in his opinion was misbranded within the meaning of Section 2(ix)(j) and (k) of the Act. The simple contention of the petitioner is that the documents contained with the prosecution report reveals that the report of the Public Analyst was entered in column „D‟ specifying that there was a label which said “best before 2003/2004” and the date and place of collection was 21.4.2004 evidently after the date of expiry period. Moreover the test appears to have been done on 12.5.2004 i.e. much after the expiry period and thereafter the complaint was filed in August, 2004. However, it appears that the objection of the - 2 - complainant was that the label did not bear the date of manufacturing but only bore the date as to till when it was best before the article was consumed. The entire object of specifying the date of manufacturing and the period it is „best before‟ it is consumed is for the purpose that the same may not be consumed after the expiry of the said period, since the quality of the article may deteriorate after the said period. In the present case when the admitted position is that it was specified that the drink was best to be consumed before March, 2004 there was no question of the petitioner in any capacity having committed any act punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Moreover there is no material to suggest that the petitioner in his capacity as a Managing Director of Lumbini Beverage Pvt. Ltd., Hajipur had sold the cold drinks after the expiry of the period, thus endangering the health of the general public. In view of the above consideration and also that there is no personal liability of the petitioner averred in the prosecution report, I am inclined to allow the application and quash the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara in Complaint case No.58(O)/2004 Trial No.2376 of 2005. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )