Roop Chand vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

Roop Chand has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashment of complaint and resultant proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The case set up by the petitioner is that in view of minor adulteration allegedly shown in the report of the Public Analyst, no offence much less under section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act is made out and the continuation of the complaint against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

This aspect of the case is being disputed by the respondentState on the plea there the cases under the Food Adulteration Act are the cases of absolute liability and once the article is found to be adulterated or substandard, the accused has to face the music and conviction. From the side of the State reliance has been placed on 1979 Chandigarh Law Reporter 257 State of Haryana v. Kalu.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the authority relied upon by the counsel for the State has been given in a different circumstance because in the said case the sample was of milk. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon 1992(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Case 130 Rakesh Kumar v. The State of Haryana, a judgment of this Court where a sample of Haldi was taken and according to the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory 1.85% excess ash was found in the sample. This Court relied upon an authority 1976(2) FAC 75 and came to the conclusion that the excess ash being of negligible quantity, the trial of the accused could not end in conviction and the proceedings were quashed. The ratio of the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is more near to the facts in hand and this view of the Hon''ble Single Judge has again been accepted in 1995(3) RCR 311 Nortan Mal v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that marginal adulteration has to be ignored. That case was a case of chilly which contained total ash excess of 38% i.e. about 300th part of substance. It was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that there was possibility of error of judgment in analysis and the functions of Public Analyst being that of an expert, his word in that regard should be given considerable weightage but the same could not be put at the pedestal of being gospel truth. In these circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner was set aside.

Reverting to the facts in hand the excess total ash was only 1% which is very negligible. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the present petition succeeds and the complaint pending before the learned CJM, Ambala City, Annexure P.2 under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is hereby quashed.