IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.19076 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 10, 2010 SANJEEV KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GS Sawhney, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Sample of mustard oil of 'Kamal brand' was taken from the premises of the petitioner, who is a vendor of the said item. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a sealed container of the item. The petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence as he had no occasion to know what was inside the container. The mustard oil has been found adulterated, but the petitioner is not the manufacturer. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the petitioner could sell an item in terms of Rule 15 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') only. Criminal Misc. No.19076 -M of 2009 2 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Para-9 of the complaint (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- “9. That the report of Public Analyst Pb Chandigarh was received and his opinion was that the product is claimed to be agmark but agmark label number has not been given as required under the provision of rule 15 of the PFA rule 1955. The product is therefore misbranded.” Since there is a specific allegation that the petitioner was selling a product that had no Agmark label, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged. Under Rule 15 of the Rules, sample of food which has been taken from an Agmark sealed container, is required to bear the label, including Grade, Agmark label No./Batch No., etc. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for interference, while exercising power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is made out. It will be for the trial court to consider, after taking evidence, whether the petitioner has violated the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules or not. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. May 10, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?