IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.37352 of 2007 HIMADRI CHOWDHURY @ HIMATRI CHOWDHURY, S/O LALTE HARAPRIYA CHOWDHURY Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITY), PATNA **** /6/ 05.02.2010 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is the manufacturer of Lucy Noodles, his factory being located at 32, Kidwaipuri, Patna, and seeks quashing of the order of cognizance passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Case No. 61(M) of 2005, dated 20.12.2005, under Section 16(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. The prosecution case is that on 20.10.2005, the Food Inspector visited the shop (factory) of the present petitioner and collected samples of three packets of Lucy Noodles and sent the same to the public analyst in whose opinion the packets did not conform to the labeling provision and, therefore, a prosecution for misbranding was launched upon the petitioner and cognizance was taken as mentioned aforesaid. 4. The simple argument of the petitioner is that it is an undisputed position that petitioner is a manufacturer and the goods had not been carried out from the factory to be sold and, therefore, whether the packet was fully labeled or not was yet to be determined by the manufacturer. The submission is that there was a separate logo which was yet to be stuck on the packets containing the weight before the goods were sent to the market, therefore, in the absence of the additional sticker on the noodles seized by the Food Inspector while the goods were still 2 lying in the factory it could not be concluded that the same was misbranded. The further submission of the petitioner is that under Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it was essential for the Food Inspector to have called witnesses which he did not do and, therefore, the entire prosecution launched upon the petitioner is nothing, but, an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. It is not uncommon to have an additional sticker on any packet claiming the date of manufacture and the period for which the article is best for use and, therefore, the submission of the petitioner has some substance. 6. In the result, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding, including the order, dated 20.12.2005, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Case No. 61(M) of 2005 is quashed. S.A. (Anjana Prakash, J.)