Crl. Misc. No. M-52547 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-52547 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 09.05.2011 Jaspinder Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate and Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Jaspinder Singh for quashing of FIR No. 297 dated 22.11.2007 registered under Sections 273 and 274 IPC and Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') at Police Station City Rajpura. Notice of motion was issued on 5.3.2008 and while issuing notice of motion, following contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded:- “Contends that the report of the Public Analyst only shows that the milk solids not fat were found to be deficient and that the milk was not found to be spurious and therefore the provisions Crl. Misc. No. M-52547 of 2007 (2) of Sections 273 and 274 IPC are not attracted and only a complaint under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was maintainable. Sections 273 and 274 IPC are reproduced as under:- 273. Sale of noxious food or drink.- Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 274. Adulteration of drugs.- Whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to the alleged samples of milk sent by the doctors of Civil Hospital, Samana, three reports have been received from the office of Public Analyst, Punjab mentioning that the samples in question contain milk fats as 6.4% as against prescribed standard of 4.5% and milk solids not fat as 7.5% against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5%. Learned counsel further contends that nothing spurious was alleged in the FIR and Section 16 of the Act has also been added which provides for penalties in addition to Crl. Misc. No. M-52547 of 2007 (3) penalty under Section 6. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that registration of the aforesaid FIR is totally an abuse of process of law, as Section 20 of the Act prohibits taking cognizance of commission of various offences. Section 20 of the Act is reproduced as follow:- “20. Cognizance and trial of offence-(1) (No prosecution for an offence under this Act, not being an offence under Sectin 14 of Section 14A) shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, (the Central Government or the State Government) (The words “as a local authority” omitted by Act 34 of 1976, sec 16 (w.e.f. 1.4.1976) or a person authorized in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government (The words “or a local authority” omitted by Act 34 of 1976, sec 16 (w.e.f 1.4.1976). Provided that a prosecution for an offence under this Act may be instituted by a purchaser (or recognized consumer association) referred to in Section 12, (if he or it produces) in a court a copy of the report of the public analyst along with the complaint. (2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try and offence under this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence punishable under sub-section (1AA) of section 16 shall be cognizable and non- bailable.)” Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-52547 of 2007 (4) Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on record. In the present case, FIR was registered for offences under Section 273 and 274 IPC. The samples of milk were sent by the Doctor of Civil Hospital, Samana and three reports were received from the office of Public Analyst, Punjab mentioning that the samples in question contain milk fats as 6.4% against prescribed standard of 4.5% and milk solids not fat as 7.5% against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5%. As per reports, the milk fats contents were above minimum standards but milk solids not fat were less than the minimum prescribed standard. The milk was not spurious or synthetic and no offence under Sections 273 and 274 IPC is made out. Admittedly as per provisions of Section 273 and 274 IPC only complaint under section 16 of the Act is maintainable and not FIR. It is clear from the facts mentioned above that no offence under Section (1AA) of Section 16 is made out as cognizance could have been taken upon filing of the complaint as offence is not cognizable. Sub-section (1AA) reads as under:- “(1AA) if any person in whose safe custody any article of food has been kept under sub-section (4) of section 10, tampers or in any other manner interferes with such article, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees.” Section 16 of the Act cannot be invoked as the milk in question is not even alleged to be noxious as to fall within the provisions of Section 273 IPC as the milk in question is not drug or medicine preparation and it does not fall under Section 274 IPC also. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the Crl. Misc. No. M-52547 of 2007 (5) petitioner as well as law position explained above, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 297 dated 22.11.2007 registered under Sections 273 and 274 IPC and Section 16 of the Act at Police Station City Rajpura as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. May 09, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE