Pankaj Rai vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This revision is filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dated 13.7.1994 in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1992. The accused petitioner was challaned for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

According to the prosecution, a sample of Maida was taken from the shop of the petitioner and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst who found that the sample contained fourteen living insects (Larves). The learned Magistrate felt that the presence of the living insects in the Maida does not amount to adulteration of food stuff and does not make it unfit for human consumption and resultantly discharged the accused. The State filed the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who by his impugned order directed the trial Magistrate to frame charge against the accused and proceed according to law. Challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.

At this stage, it is not necessary for me to go into the facts of the case in detail. Suffice to say that a sample of Maida was taken from the petitioner and the Public Analyst found that it contained fourteen living insects. Under Section 2(ia)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if the article wholly or in part consists decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption. Whether the article was insectinfested or whether it is unfit for human consumption is a matter to be decided after all the evidence is placed before the Court. At the stage of framing of charge, no conclusion can be reached whether the article of food stuff in question namely Maida is covered by Section 2(ia)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur rightly directed the learned Magistrate to frame a charge against the accused and proceed in accordance with law. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Some authorities have been cited before me but in all those cases, the entire evidence has been adduced after framing of the charge and the finding has also been recorded. As no evidence is recorded in this case after framing of the charge, I do not think those decisions cited before me are of any use in deciding whether the Maida in question is adulterated.

I do not, therefore, find any ground warranting interference in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Revision dismissed.