AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,
Through the medium of instant petition, filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks quashment of Complaint (AnnexureA) dated 20th",,,,
May, 2003 titled, “Jammu Municipal Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar and Anotherâ€filed by the Jammu Municipal Corporation, i.e., respondent No.",,,,
1 herein in the Court of Special Municipal (Mobile) Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu against him on the grounds that the petitioner manufactures its",,,,
Pillsbury Atta in the Northern Region of India through one of its co-packers M/S Mix Flora Pvt. Ltd. Most of the supply of the petitioner’s,,,,
Pillsbury Atta in the Northern Region of India is made from the above said Co-packer situated at 154 & 155 D.S.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Narela,",,,,
Delhi. The manufacturing and processing of the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta at the said co-packing unit is done automatically and the packaging of,,,,
the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta at the said co-packing unit is done manually. The petitioner has worldwide accepted Good Manufacturing Practices,,,,
(in short,GMP) and Hazard Critical Control Point (in short, HACCP) procedures in place for quality manufacturing. Â",,,,
It is stated in the instant petition that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the proceedings in a Complaint u/s 7/16 of the,,,,
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as theAct).Â",,,,
It has further been stated that reading of the whole Complaint and in particular, the enclosures as mentioned at Page No. 3 of the Complaint does",,,,
not carry an iota of prima-facie evidence much less the substantial evidence that the alleged sample was taken from the bag of Pillsbury Atta, of",,,,
which the petitioner is the manufacturer. This important aspect of the matter came into the knowledge of the petitioner through one of its authorized,,,,
representative, who for the first time put in appearance before the Trial Court on the date, i.e., 26th September, 2003, on which the alleged sample",,,,
was required to be sent for re-examination by the Central Food Laboratory pursuant to an application made u/s 13(2) of the aforesaid Act by the,,,,
petitioner. On the next date, i.e., on 27th September, 2003 when the alleged sample was brought before the Hon’ble Court by the complainant",,,,
himself that the said alleged sample did not carry any bearing on it that the said alleged sample is of the petitioner’s Pillsbury Atta.Â,,,,
I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the law on the subject.Â,,,,
Main thrust of argument of counsel for petitioner is that mandatory compliance of amended rule 22 of Act has not been made as the articles (Atta),,,,
was in packed conditions, so whole packet was to be taken for examination without opening seal or packet.Â",,,,
Whereas counsel for State has stated that this aspect of procedural law is directory in nature and not necessary. Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG,",,,,
appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled, “State of Punjab  Â",,,,
Vs.Devinder Kumar and othersâ€Â 1983 (1) page 99 Prevention of FoodAdulteration cases, wherein it is held that rule 22-A does not state that",,,,
where a sealed container contains a quantity larger than what is required for the purposes of section 11 read with rule 22, the sealed container as such",,,,
should be taken as sample and no sample can be taken after opening the sealed container.,,,,
From the perusal of the Complaint in question, it is evident that the complainant, namely, Jyoti Sarup was appointed as Food Inspector, Jammu",,,,
Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the aforesaid Act for the local area of Jammu Municipal Corporation vide Jammu & Kashmir Govt.,,,,
Notification SRO-346 date 27th July, 1984. After disclosing his identity, he inspected the premises of Ashok Kumar Jain, (respondent No. 2 herein) on",,,,
25th February, 2003, situated at Karan Nagar, Jammu. The said respondent No. 2 used to sell Karyana items like Spices, Pulses and Atta etc.Â",,,,
The said Food Inspector found 8 bags of Atta of different brands and demanded a sample of Atta Pillsburry brand from Ashok Kumar Jain. For this,,,,
purpose, he gave in writing in Form No.VI prepared on spot, as prescribed under the aforesaid Act. The complainant purchased 600 grams Atta of",,,,
Pillsbury brand from the said Ashok Kumar Jain for Rs. 7/- and obtained a receipt of payment.,,,,
It has been further alleged in the aforesaid Complaint that the said Sample was divided into three equal parts and bottled in three dry and clean,,,,
bottles. The bottles were stoppered labeled & wrapped in strong thick paper ends of which were neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum. The,,,,
sample was taken in the presence of two witnesses, whose signatures were obtained on the payment receipt. At the time of lifting of sample, the",,,,
independent witnesses were asked to stand as witnesses, but nobody came forward and the departmental witness had to be kept. The sealed part",,,,
of the sample of Atta along with Memorandum in Form No. VII in a sealed outer cover was handed over to the Public Analyst, Jammu and under",,,,
intimation to the Local Health Authority, Jammu Municipal Corporation, the remaining two sealed parts of sample along with two copies of",,,,
Memorandum inform No. VII were handed over to the Local Health Authority, Jammu Municipal Corporation in a sealed outer cover and a receipt",,,,
was obtained. The Certificate of Public Analyst, Jammu reveals that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed for Atta as per PFA",,,,
Rules, 1955. Accordingly, the Complaint was filed before the Special Municipal (Mobile) Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu. The petitioner being the",,,,
owner of the General Mills was also arrayed as accused. During the pendency of the Complaint, the second sample was sent to Central Food",,,,
Laboratory and the Central Food Laboratory on  29th September, 2013 issued Certificate of Analysis, which reads as follows:-",,,,
 “CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS BY THE CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY,,,,
Certificate No. CFL/739/1171/2003,,,,
Certified that the sample bearing No. 01 S. No. 212/2002-03 purporting to be a sample of Atta Pillsbury was received on 01.09.2003 with,,,,
Memorandum No. MMJ/114 dated 27thAugust, 2003 from the Special Municipal Mobile Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jammu for analysis.",,,,
The condition of the seals on the container and the outer covering on receipt was as follows:-,,,,
The sample was received in sealed condition. The seals were intact, properly fastened and tallied with the specimen impression of the seal received",,,,
separately from the Hon’ble Court.Â,,,,
ISh. S.B. Shirolkarfound the sample to the Atta falling under Item No. A.,,,,
18.01 of *Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955*. The sample was in condition fit for analysis and has been analyzed from",,,,
23rd September, 2003 to 29th September, 2003 and the results of its analysis is given below:-",,,,
ANALYSIS REPORT:-,,,,
(i) Sample description: Sample received loose in polythene bag.,,,,
(ii) Physical appearance: Off white powder.,,,,
(iii) Label,,,,
S. No.,"Quality
Characteristics","Name of Method
of test used","Â Â Â
Results","Prescribed standards as
per:
(a) Item A of
Appendix B.
(b) As per labelÂ
declaration for
proprietary foods.
(c) As per provisions
of the Act and
Rules, for both
above as per item.
,"Moisture
        Â
by
heating at 130-
133 C for 2
hrs", DGHS Manual, 10.46%,Not more than 14.0%
2.,Total ash, DGHS Manual, 1.60%,"Not more than 2.0% on
dry wt. basis.
3.,"Ash insoluble in dil
HCI","Â Â Â Â Â Â -
do-", 0.07%,"Not more than 0.15% on
dry wt. basis.
4.,Gluten,"Â Â Â Â Â Â -
do-", 8.3%,"Not less than 6.0% on
dry wt. basis.
5.,"AlcoholicÂac Âidi tÂy   Â
        Â
(with90%
alcohol)expressed
        Â
as H2 SO
4",-do-, 0.19%,"Not more than 0.18%on
dry wt. basis.
6,"Microscopic
examination", D. Pearson," Wheat
+Â
Rice
Starch","Wheat starch shall be
present.
protect innocent persons from being involved in false and frivolous litigation.,,,,
In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed as mandatory provision of rule 22 of Act was not followed. The complaint is quashed.",,,,
The record of Court below be sent back forthwith.,,,,