IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT' BILASPUR f “: > (c..G.1 Criminal Misc. Petition 51?. 6' ( of 2007 i PETITIONERS ' 1i c. A. Nand Kmar f Nomifwe, M/s Frito ay India, KBfDLF Corporéte Park, S Block, Club Enclav Phase III, Gurgaon 122002 Hayyana \ 2i. M/s. Frgfo Lay Inhia, .w NOWuName changed to Pepsico L " w} india Holdings mg. aK/VAVA 3B2 6LF Corporate Pagk, i: ' " ' "” s Biock, Ciub Enclavophase m, Gurgao; 122 002 Haryana “fa—n VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur (NEPT) (v, Lt 2. Food Inspector, RESPONDENTS Food 81; Drug Administration, Raipur, (MT?) / .ti v PETITION UNDER SECTIONS 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING QUASHING OF THE COMPLAINT AND PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDI IA/L MAGISTRATE RAIPUR AND ORDER DATED 30.I0.19..98 OF ISSUING PROCESS IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 1334 9 TITLED ‘THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH NOW CHHATTISGARI'ILVERSUS CHETANDAS AND OTEIERS’ UNDER SECTION 7 ‘1} READ )N’ITH SECTION 16]1MAll1! OF THE PREVENTION OF FOOD‘IADULTERATION ACT, 1954. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: That the present petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Court by the petitioner no. 1 who is a nominee of the petitioner no. 2 company and they have been arrayed as g é ” M? HIéH CQURT G? CHHAW$&&RH ;%T $1LAWUK Singie Bemh : Haa‘b§a $‘ar. Eug’ficg Pw§%énkgr Eéwakw Cr'.f§i.?. Na 9%? Cr? ELK??? PETITIGNERE; C. A Nam Kumar c§ am'rhan § ‘iwsms RE5PON%ENT3 5mm za‘f Ci? hm"?isg~§?h é’e Cim‘rhw, Shri Rajesh Ba’rm wifh Shri Abhishek 3mm, counsei fer The pefii‘iame’rs. Shr’i Pmvm Das, Depufy Gevemmam Advocafe for “We STafe/respondenf Na. 1, PETITION UNDQR 5ECTION 4&2 GF THE €0123.5 SF CREg‘éiNséL PgOCEDURE. aabaa (139032030) Presen? pgfrifign fiEgd undar §gdian 482 19f mg Cedg cf Criminal Preceéura §s far quashing :Hwe proceedinga ‘pammg bz’fcrg “ma Judicia§ Magig‘s‘mfe, FirsT Cmgs, Raipur‘ pursmn‘? ”m ’rha campmim as made by ‘fha raspomdean? No, 2 - Fwd Inspecfer‘, Furfher‘ challenga is Ta we ordar daTad 3Q£10.1998 (Annaxuve P-z) issuing pracgss 3‘s Tha pg‘ri\*rigngrs in compiaim case No.1334/1999 (remumbered as Compiain’a‘ Case No. 1150/2906). a. grief fads 9f fhe case are thair gm. 37.4,1998 ma H1; ?anji, Faod Inspec’m‘r‘ had vi3i‘?ed one Nemji Hate! a? Kmcm “high, Raipuy‘ and had purchgsgd *rhr‘ea packam Of ma woduw “Lahar‘ Bhujia" weighing’ZQQ gms. {Md- merew’rgr, 3 f lmad sen; .g. mg I ' wmg‘. ”far analys§s 1’9 fhg Pub§ic Amiysf cmd an 2.é.1998 Jr‘ae rapam‘ wgs‘rlgceived 'fr‘cm ’{he said Pubiic Andysf, wherein. if has bean sJmn‘ed ’rhm' Jrhe mid sampie “tasfed p0$iJfive “far Jrhe ‘ cam‘an’rs of Tiwda Dd (Kesari Dai) cmd heme i? was faund 1‘0 ‘ be adul‘femfed. Affer ob‘rainmg The ccnmnf an 11” S€p%'embar, 1998, The comp§ain+ case was filed before Thg iear‘nad Judacm! I MagisTraTe on 30*“ OcTober, 1998 and The process was issued Jm The peTiTioners‘ PeT'n‘ionar No. 1 herein is The naminee 0f The Cempany Mfs. Frifo Lay Inéia, wha was The manufat’rurar‘ of The said producT “Lahar Bhujia“ whereas fhe peTiTionerl No. 2 is The manufac’rurar. 3. Counsgi for The peTiTioners submiT ThaT The sampling of Thg product was done en27.4‘1998 and on ThoT daTe There was m noTificcTion as canTemplaTed unéer Rule 44—A of PrevenTiun 3f Faod AeuiTeraTian Ruies, 1955; He sgbmETs The“? by noTificaTian daTed 6*” Aprii, 2000, a relevanT ruTe has been made effecTive To The STaTe of Madhya Pradesh by ‘ NaTificuTion 'No. F-10-62/98/M—2/17. According Te The caunsei for The peTiTianer‘s, Ghee The Rule 44—.A cf PrevenTien 9f Feed AdulTemTion Ruies, 1955 has been made apphcabTe wh‘h effecT from 6““ Aprii, 2000, under ho sTreTch of vimaginuT'wh The peTiTioners can be prosecuTed for viola‘i’ihg The said Ruie on The basis of sample Repor’r daTed 2.6.1998, He submiTs’ ThaT This polhT has already been decided by The Apex CourT in The Case of Dihesh Kumar v. STaTe of MP. reporTed in 2004 £2) FAG 151 = 2004a Valume 8 $a§€ Tm. Fwd[—— 4: Learned STaTe Counsel submiTs ThaT poinT raised by The i peTlTlonere has been duly considered by The learned MagisTraTe vide order daTed 2.3.2002 whereby The application as filed by The peTiTioners under SecTion Z45 (Z) of The Code l of Criminal Procedure has been decided againsT Them. He TurTher submiTs ThaT The polm‘ raised by The peTiTioner's eon only be considered afTer adducing of evidence ahd The peTiTion is premaTure. ‘g 5. I have heard caumei fer, ma wmes and perugd fhe material availabie on record. 6. The undispu‘red fads are fhaj’ samgia was cciiected on 27.4.1998, we rapcm‘ m‘ §3ubiic Andi/g? was receivgd on 2.6.1998 and The pej‘i‘fienarxa. are facing proseeu‘rion as Tha sample was fou§1d f0 be aduhemkd and ’rhe TesT was fcund To. be positive in respac? of presence m‘ Tgwdg Dcd, excepf This ailegafion, There is no a’rher hilega’rmn agaihsf fhe pefiJrmner‘s fGr‘ vioiating any Ru!as in reim‘ion To The provisions of Prevenfion of Food Adulfem‘fion ACT. A bore reading of Ru!e 44 — A makes if clear fha’r ‘rhe some wouid be mods applicob!e only wifh effecf from such date as may be notified by The S’raire Government Rule 44—A reads as follows: “44A. No person in any Shale shall, wi‘l'h effecl' from such dale as The STaTe GovernmenT concerned may be noTiflcaTion in The Official GazeTTe specify ln This behalf, sell or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for The'purpose of sale, or have in his possession for The purpose of sale, under any descripTion or for use as an ingredienf in The preparaTion of any arTicle of food inTended for sale— a) Kesari gram (LaThyrus saTivus) and iTs producTs. (b) Kesari dal (LaThyrus saTivps) and iTs producTs. l (c) Kesari dal flour (Lafhyrus saTivus) and ifs producTs. a mixTure of Kesari gram (LaThyrus saTivus) i and Bengal — gram dal (Cicer arieTinum) or any oTher dal. (d) ( (e) a mixfure a’f Kewri gram and Bengal ofher daL (f) a mixmre of Kesari dai Qwhyms sm‘i‘vw) ugr'am dai (Cicer ariafinum) or any (La?'hyru$ swivus) 7. The Ru}e makes if very clear ma? “me camemad Sw'fe Qover'nmen‘r has To mm fy in fhe afficiaf gazeh‘e The daTe wi‘rh effect from which Rule 44-A becomes appiicab 8. In fhe presem‘ case i’r is nof dispm‘ed fhaf frhz 9f Przvemian of Food Aduifgrm‘ian §ules, 1955 f0!“ of Madhya Pradesh has been made appiicable wi‘rh ef 6* April, 2000 vide Ex.P-4 ie in The STaTe. §u§e 44—A Thg Sfm‘e fee? from whereas fhe complain? was fia'ed an 11.91998 affer receiving The regor} from Pubhc Aa! 9. The poim‘ raised in fhe presenf pe‘fi’rign has been du§y censidered by fhe Apex CourT in ihe maiier‘ of Dinesh Kumer K v. 5mm 9f M}. (supra) in which ii has been obs i a ‘N ' Eupr'eme Couri’ as under :« erved' by The “We find Thai se far as S concerned, ihe naiii‘ica‘i 2/17 was issued i‘or' up wi‘ih effeci from 6m “mire of MP. is ion‘No. F-3/62/98/M- piica’rion of Ruie 44A ihe sampies were coiiecied Apr-ii, much 2000. prior Admi‘riediy io ”ma? dqie i.e. 129.3.1988. Since Ruie 44A was noi appiicabie and was mi in opera'iion'in ihe Sia‘ie of MP. on ‘i'he daie of eiiegeci coiiec'iion of ‘ i +0 sampies find ‘ii‘ie §uie accUsed 44A cauici guiii'y." Ho? have been appiieci Zri view 0f i'ne abave iaciuai and iegoi iniiie’rioii 9f The prcceeeings ageinsi The pei 1Q. posi’rien, ihe very i'iiener’s is bad in The eye of law arid, Therefore, il'ie eniire proceedings inii’icn‘ed n agains‘r The peti?ioner's and The arder‘ dafed 30,101998 issuing process f0 1“he paifioners in The Compiainf Case No.1334/1999 are hereby quashed. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge 11 . The pefh‘ian i$ fhus aibwed.