State of Punjab vs Raj Kumar

S.K. Jain, J.

Ashok Kumar shopkeeper (a Halwai) and Raj Kumar, his employee, were summoned by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhuri, as accused in a case on the allegation that they had kept for sale substandard Bessan Maida Ladoos at their shop. Preliminary evidence was recorded and the parties were heard by the learned Magistrate. The argument on behalf of the accused that there was no denial of the fact that the sample of the ladoos was taken by the Food Inspector in a cardboard box which was not permissible under the Rules found favour with the Magistrate. He discharged both the accused vide his order of November 16, 1988. Feeling aggrieved, the State has challenged the said order through revision petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, the learned AAG for the State has contended that as per rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, sample of the incriminating article could be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers. His submission is that cardboard box fell within the term "other suitable container" occurring in the said rule and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has legally erred in discharging the accused.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival consideration. Rules have been framed for sealing, fastening and despatch of samples. Rule 14 prescribes the manner for sending the samples for analysis. It reads :

"14. Manner of sending sample for analysis. Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers, which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed."

The fact that the sample was collected in a cardboard box is not disputed. The rule as stated above requires that the sample should be sent to Public Analyst in clean dry container and does not contemplate that the sample should be sent in a cardboard box which can easily be tampered with. Apart from this violation, by now there is a catena of authorities of this Court wherein it was held that the taking of a sample in a paper packing is in violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and the same is fatal to the prosecution. The cardboard box was not a packing better than a paper packing. It can certainly admit moisture and can also be tampered with easily. In holding the above view, I am fortified by the following judgments :

Chand Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987 F.A.J. 17 : 1987(1) Recent Criminal Report 190 ;

State of Maharashtra v. Prabhudas Atalmal Baktani, 1987 FAJ 273;

Subhash Chander v. State of Punjab, 1987 FAJ 448 : 1986(2) Recent Criminal Report 585 ;

Sardari Lal v. The State of Punjab, 1996 FAJ 224;

Nasib Chand v. The State of Punjab, 1986 FAJ 285;

Budh Ram v. State of Punjab, 1986 FAJ 361; and

Nasib Chand v. State of Punjab, 1986 FAJ 387.

In view of above discussion, this petition is without merit and is dismissed. No fault can be found with the impugned order and the same is confirmed.