IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44908 of 2008 1. WASTERN INDIA 'C' BRINES PVT.LTD., Unit-01, Survey No. 105/01, village Pandana Kutch, Gujrat, through its Area Assistant Dilip Kumar Das, Koshi Division, S/0-Gulab Lal Das, Resident of village- Gopinagar, P.S. Kadwa, District- Katihar. 2. M/s Gulab Chand Hansraj, through its Proprietor Nans Raj Saraf, S/0 Late Hiralal Saraf, Resident of Bara Bazar, P.S. and District Katihar. ………………… Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……………… Opposite party. ----------- 2 23.04.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Vide order dated 29.8.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. BIII-3/2002 whereby the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the three petitioners. The Food Inspector, Katihar made a visit to the shop of one Kishore Kumar Gupta on 7.5.2002 and purchased a sample of Anapurna salt for the purpose of analysis by the Public Analyst. The Food Inspector sent one part of sample of the salt so purchased to Patna and the same was examined by the public Analyst and the report was submitted on 30.5.2002. The Public Analyst was of the opinion that the iodine content in the salt was less than 2 prescribed standard under the Prohibition of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. On the report of the Public Analyst a criminal case came to be filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against four persons namely, Kishore Kumar Gupta, M/s Annapurna Salt, Hindustan Lever Ltd. M/s Gulab Chand Hans Raj and Western India Gujarat Manufacturer and cognizance was taken against the accused persons on 28.8.2002 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar and the case was transferred to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar for trial. A discharge petition on behalf of the accused persons came to be filed raising several objections. The stand of the manufacturer that the salt in question carried Batch No. 5/99 and was manufactured in the month of May, 1999 with the clear stipulation on the wrapper that it is best before one year from the date of manufacturer. If the said product was sold by the shopkeeper in question after the period the liability is not of the company or the distributor as such. Not only this the other contention raised in the discharge petition was that the sample which 3 was allegedly sent for analysis to the Public Analyst was not provided to these petitioners nor were they give an opportunity to get a second opinion on the same. In case an opinion adverse to the interest of the petitioners came to be given by the Public Analyst, the proper procedure thereafter had not been followed by the Food Inspector and the liability is now being fixed on the petitioners. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the order rejecting the discharge petition does not indicate that any of the contentions raised by the petitioners has been taken into consideration in passing the order of rejection. It is a mechanical order and devoid of any reason in this regard. There seems to be some force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners in this regard, the copy of the discharge petition has been furnished to the Court which shows that a very detailed petition raising legal grounds had been raised by the petitioners but from the perusal of order dated 29.8.2008, there is nothing to indicate that any of the aspects had been considered by the learned 4 Chief Judicial Magistrate in this regard. In that view of the matter, petitioners have made out a case for interference with the impugned order dated 29.8.2008. Accordingly, it is quashed but matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration. Bibhash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)