\ §§m§i¥ Eimfx _§_N THE HIGH GDIRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILéSPUR‘CI-E’IATTISGARH) V‘s,“ ;C.r::!‘,1:_P ,_ Noi‘ 7 Q Q’or 2nd‘7"‘&f7 PETxTIoN UNDER SEc'r N 48 OF THE mDE OF CRIMINAL' cEuURE ‘OmSHIN’G/op 'mE &wmm'r CASE 6§/E)o ENDING IN THE m‘URT a? cmiml‘ BILASPUR; :31 ‘u—Ja‘ Mgfs‘kmLaiuC/lwt $§§'¢? Vinay Hegde, Branch Manager & Nominee of Ersholi Brooke Bond ad q ’O House, Second. Flocr, $ir P.M. WqwwéwM.rcwMN $ /A '- Rcad. Fort Bombay-1 (Maharashtra); {Mair ‘ 'w‘. .w ‘m.,._..‘.... Lipton (India) Limited, Illaco z. ‘hn"%-~'~;""°W I. .r‘xzia‘JGC‘“: X gy’ 5 REPONDEN‘I‘S oooto P R No?3 P ;J Nu“ PETETIqpNER VERSUS 1’./l‘he State of Chhattisgarh. 3.5. Maan, Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Bilaopuu chhattisgarh) HiGli COURT OFCHHATTISGARH A! §ILASPU5 (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 180 of 2007 APPLICANT Vinay He'gde VERSUS RESPONDENT Stat. of Chhaitisgarh' Post forptonouncemant of the judgment‘dated 113 I03l201 0. sul- ‘ Pritinker Diwaker Judge m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 180 of 2007 APPLICANT Vinay Hegde VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh. Shri Surendra Singh learned senior counsel with Shri Neeraj Mehta for the applicant. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondent/State. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (-30.032010) The present petition has been filed for quashment of Criminai Case No. 362/2000 (old case No. 1919 of 1997) pending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Facts of the case in nut-shell are that on 23.12.1995, Food inspector namely J.S. Maan collected the sample of Lipton Milkhana instant Dairy Whitener from the vendor namely Prahlad Rai which on‘ examination by the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated vide its report dated 1.2.1996 appended with the present petition as Annexure-C. 3. According to the counsel for the applicant, the report of the ff‘ Public Analyst dated 1.2.1996 itself demonstrates that the said‘g sample of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener was analyzed against the standard laid down for skimmed milk powder and not against that of Milkhana instant Dairy Whitener. in these circumstances, learned ‘ senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the prosecution of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is without any basis. He further submits that as no standard for analysis of / \ l 0.2_ Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener has been laid down in the schedule, the said product will be govemed by Rule 37-A(1) & (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He submits that when no specific standard for the analysis of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener slaid down, the entire prosecution of the appiicant being misconceived and based on no evidence is Iiable to be quashed. He further submits that the maximum expiry period for milk products is 10 months but in this case the sample of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener was manufactured and packed in the month of October- 1995 whereas the complaint was filed on 17.11.1997 and this delay in filing the complaint has deprived the applicant of his right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and for this reason also the complaint is liable to be quashed. He further submits that though the complaint was filed on 17.1 1.1997, not even a single witness has been examined by the prosecution and therefore on the ground of delay in trial also, the complaint is liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the supreme Court in the matter of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Food Inspector and another reported in 2006 (1) FAC 237 and that of the Orissa High Court in the matter .of Bipin Mohanty & another v. State of Orissa & another reported in 2006 (2) FAC 44. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and submits that ' as on examination by the Public Analyst the sample was found to be adulterated, the prosecution launched against the applicant is in accordance with law and need not be quashed in the petition filed ‘ under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. State counsel 4. however does not dispute that no standard for the analysis of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener has been prescribed in the schedule and the products of such nature are to be governed by Rule 37-A (1) & (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 5. Before adverting to the merit aspect of the case it would be l appOSIte to refer to the Rule 37 A (2) (b) of the Prevention of Food I Adulteration Rules, which reads as under. f ._3_ "37—A. (2) (b) “Proprietary food means a food which has not been standardized under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Ru/es, 1955. " Clause (b) of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 37-A clearly indicates that proprietary food means the food which has not been standardized. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the sample taken and analyzed conformed to the standard prescribed for the skimmed milk powder and for the product known as Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener no standard whatsoever has been laid down. it is settled position of law that the prosecution in regard to an article for which no standards have been laid down, applying the standards for other articles would not be sustainable. In the matter of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Food inspector and another (supra) the Supreme Court has ordained thus: Para 7 — Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 37—A clearly indicates that proprietary food means food which has not been standardized. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that in view of sub—rule (1) the appellant was supposed to have approval of such articles of food from the Government of India. We, however find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for’the respondents, since it applies only to infant dairy milk products or the infant dairy milk food, the sample which has been taken and has been analyzed is neither infant milk substitute/infant food nor it is skimmed milk powder, an article for which standards have been prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Any prosecution in regard to an article for which no standards have been laid, applying the standards for other articles would not be sustainable.” In the present case also the report of the Public Analyst conclusively establishes that the sample of Milkhana Instant Dairy Whitener was “analyzed against the standard of the skimmed milki powder and no standard for the product known as Milkhana Instant ‘ Dairy Whitener which by virtue of Rule 37-A (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, is categorized as proprietary food, has been laid down. 6. In view of the factual discussion and the settled position of law enumerated above, this Court is of the View that the prosecution of the applicant for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of the petition is allowed. Criminal case No. 362/2000 (old Case No. 1919/1997) pending against the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur is hereby quashed. j _-({__~ Food Adulteration Act, is illegal. Accordingly, Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge