CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.29874 OF 2001 CHAIRMAN,M/S HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., 165-166, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI THROUGH M.S. BANGA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. S.KUMAR, FOOD INSPECTOR, CIVIL SURGEON OFFICE, PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. WITH Cr.Misc. No.29880 oF 2001 M/S HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., 165-166, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY S NAYAR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. S.KUMAR, FOOD INSPECTOR, CIVIL SURGEON OFFICE, PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. WITH Cr.Misc. No.7303 oF 2002 M/S INDEXPORT LIMITED, A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 165/166 BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI THROUGH ITS LEGAL MANAGER, SASWATA DHAR, C/O BROOKE HOUSE, 9, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI A.K. SINGH, THE FOOD INSPECTOR, CIVIL SURGEON OFFICE, PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. WITH Cr.Misc. No.7306 oF 2002 SUDHIR NAYAR, SON OF KULDEEP NAYAR, C/O HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED, BROOKE HOUSE, 9, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATTA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI A.K. SINGH, THE FOOD INSPECTOR, CIVIL SURGEON OFFICE, PATNA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S N.K. Agrawal, Sr.Adv. Jayanta Roy Choudhary,Adv. For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Daya, A.P.P. (In Cr.Misc. Nos.29874/2001 and 29880/2001). For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey,A.P.P. (In Cr.Misc. Nos.7303/2002 and 7306/2002). 2 ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh kumar,J. In all the aforesaid cases, order of cognizance is under challenge. In the aforesaid cases, learned Magistrates have taken cognizance of offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as Rule and Act). Allegation in aforesaid cases are that on the product, date of manufacture etc. were not mentioned as per the rule 32(c) of the Bihar Food Adulteration Rules, which was introduced by amendment. The said provision came into force with effect from 1st September,2000. In all the aforesaid cases, products were packed/manufactured prior to the date of implementation of the amended rules and as such it was prayed by Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel that order of cognizance is fit to be set aside. 2. Shri N.k. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Shri Jayant Roy Choudhary, advocate, at the time of hearing, has submitted that in similar circumstance in a case i.e. Cr. Misc. No.29876 of 2001 3 (Chairman, M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & anr.), this Court on 18.8.2010 has quashed the proceeding initiated on such allegation. 3. Shri Mukeshwar Dayal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has not disputed that this Court on 18th August,2010 itself has passed order in the similar circumstance in favour of the petitioners. 4. There is no reason to deviate from the order passed in similar circumstance by this Court in a case in which the prosecution was initiated against the petitioners and as such order of cognizance dated 6.2.2001 passed by S.D.J.M., Patna City in C.B. Case No.2 of 2001, Tr. No.1176 of 2001 (in Cr. Misc. No.29874 of 2001), order of cognizance dated 3.7.2001 passed by S.D.J.M., Patna City in C.B. No.18 of 2001, Tr. No.1336 of 2001 (in Cr. Misc. No.29880 of 2001), order of cognizance dated 3.7.2001 passed by S.D.J.M., Patna City in C.B. No.19 of 2001, Tr.No.1337 of 2001 (in Cr. Misc. No.7303 of 2002) and order of cognizance dated 24.8.2001 passed by S.D.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No.69(M) of 2001, Tr. No.1921 of 2001 (in Cr. Misc. 4 No.7306 of 2002) are hereby set aside. 5. All the aforesaid petitions are allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 25.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.