IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44636 of 2007 AZAD KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar. Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P. --------- 2/ 22.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 23.08.2006 as also the entire proceedings in Cr. Misc. No. 9/2006 under Section 16(a)(i), read with Section 7 of the of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “adulteration Act” for short) and Section 50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, pending before the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. The complaint lodged on 22.08.2006 by the Food Inspector alleged that the O.P. no.2 purchased a sample of Semolina (Sujji) from the shop of the petitioner which was found to be adulterated on chemical analysis. Consent for the prosecution had been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the entire prosecution submitted that the analyst report was that the Semolina contained foreign black hard particles beyond prescribed standard and therefore, it was adulterated. He urged that unless the analyst reported that the alleged foreign object found was of a nature rendering it unfit for human consumption, mere presence of the foreign material will not bring the food item within the definition of the term adulteration. He 2 relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 741. Learned counsel for the State opposing the application urged that the mere presence of an object in the food item which is not supposed to be present in the food item meeting the standards leads to adulteration. In the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vrs. Puran Mal relied upon by the petitioner a sample of Lal Mirchi (Red Chilli) powder purchased from the grocery shop of the respondent. The analyst report revealed that it contained 9 living meal worms. There was no other evidence in support of the case of the prosecution that the Lal Mirchi powder was adulterated. The Magistrate was satisfied that the report did not fulfill the requirements of the definition of the term “adulterated article” under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. He, therefore, held that the prosecution had failed to prove adulterated nature and acquitted the respondent. A revision preferred against the order of acquittal before the High Court laid to its dismissal when the matter came up for examination in appeal at the behest of the prosecution by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded in paragraph-13 as follows: “13. Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst does not support the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the lal mirchi powder was either worm-infested or insect- infested or that on account of the presence of the meal-worms the sample was unfit for human 3 consumption. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement of S. 2(1)(f) of the Act. Consequently, no interference is called for with the judgment of the High Court which, as stated above, has dismissed the criminal revision in limine. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed”. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged black hard particles found whereof a nature rendering the product unfit for human consumption. This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to arrive at a conclusion to distinguish the present case from that relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. The order of cognizance and the entire proceedings against the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 9/2006 is, therefore, quashed. The application stands allowed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)