Mahant Yoga Anand, Brahm Rishi Asharam vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The present petition has been filed by Mahant Yoga Anand under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 and the proceedings thereon pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.

The Complaint, Annexure P/1 was presented by the Government Food Inspector against the petitioner and one Bhonda Ram, milk seller for an offence under Section 16(1)(i)(a) read with Section 7 of the Food Adulteration Act. As per averments made in the complaint, on 2651990, the Government Food Inspector visited the premises of Bhonda Ram, a servant of Mahant Brahm Rishi Ashram, Virat Nagar, Pinjore at about 8 30 a.m. and found him in possession of 50 litres cow''s milk. carrying on his cycle in a drum, which was meant for public sale. A sample weighing 750 ml of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector, which was put into three dry clean bottles and was sealed according to rules. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst Haryana at Chandigarh for analysis and the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in milk fat by 12.5% and milk solids not fat by 6% of the minimum prescribed standard. Thus the complaint was filed against the petitioner and Bhonda Ram.

The petitioner alleged that there was no allegation in the complaint that he had committed any offence. No facts were mentioned which indicated that he had violated the provisions of the Act or the Rules in any manner. It was further contended that milk in possession of Bhonda Ram was not for sale and it was for consumption of residents of the Ashram. The petitioner contended that he was not the owner of the Ashram and maintained that the Ashram was owned by a Trust with Brahmrisi Vishwa Atma as Head Swami. He was only one of the numerous resident disciples of the Ashram.

In the return filed by the respondents, it was pleaded that the petitioner himself owned the responsibility of ownership of the milk and he signed the documents i.e. the notice, receipt and spot memo when the sample of milk was taken. He also accepted payment and admitted that he was the servant.

5 . I have heard counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint taken on their face value without adding or subtracting anything did not spell out the ingredients of any offence. The petitioner had absolutely no concern with the milk and the same was in possession of Bhonda Ram. Bhonda Ram was a servant of the Ashram as one of the disciples and there was no question of any sale of milk by him. in fact the milk, which was being carried by Bhonda Ram was for consumption of residents of the Ashram and was not meant for sale. Even if the allegations made in the complaint that it was for public sale, is taken to be true, still the complaint did not disclose as to how any offence was committed by the petitioner. Bhonda Ram was not carrying the milk for sale on behalf of the petitioner nor any such averment was made in the complaint Annexure P/ 1. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite valid. A perusal of the complaint, Annexure P/1 shows that there are no allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner as to how he was responsible for sale of adulterated milk. The averment against Bhonda Ram as contained in Para 2 of the complaint is that he was a servant of Mehant Brahm Rishi Ashram, but in the body of the complaint, name of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned. He is not described as an owner of the Ashram, nor it is alleged that Bhonda Ram was carrying milk for sale on his behalf. There was no averment that the petitioner signed some documents at the spot and owned the ownership of the milk as is now being alleged in the return, filed to the petitioner. In the absence of any averment made against the petitioner showing how he had committed any offence, the complaint against him cannot proceed. As a result, I allow this petition and quash complaint, Annexure P/l and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.