Allowed

Hom Made Baker'S v. Food Inspector (State of Punjab) and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Oct 2012CRM-M/33449/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Rule 24 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner where analysis showed no synthetic colour, rendering the labeling observation insignificant and continuing the prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No.6 dated 13.7.2004 and the summoning order dated 13.7.2004, along with all subsequent proceedings, quashed.

Hom Made Baker'S Vs Food Inspector (State of… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-33449 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-33449 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.10 2012

¶5

Home Made Baker's (India Ltd.)

¶6

......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Food Inspector (State of Punjab) and others

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr.Joginder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

None for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶14

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No.6 dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 as well as the summoning order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶17

The case of the complainant, in brief, as per the complainant (Annexure P-2) is that on 12.3.2004 at about 4.45 P.M. premises of Madan Lal Bansal was inspected. 12 packets of milk Glucose biscuits 100 gms each in packed and sealed state were found on the rack for sale for human consumption. Complainant

¶18

Criminal Misc. No.M-33449 of 2009 (O&M) 2

¶19

introduced himself to the accused. 6 packets of 100 gms each of milk Glucose biscuits were purchased from Madan Lal Bansal against payment of ` 30/-. 2 packets of biscuits were made into a sealed parcel as sample. The sample was sent for analysis. The Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide its report, opined that the sample was mis-branded as the word “permitted colour” had been written instead of “ permitted synthetic food colour” as required under Rule 24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules for short). Hence, the complaint was filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed as no offence under the Act/ Rules had been committed by the petitioner/accused. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, no synthetic colour was detected in the sample. In these circumstances, the fact that the word “permitted synthetic food colour” had not been written on the sample in stead of “permitted colour” loses its significance.

¶21

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 , the Apex Court has held as under:-

¶24

“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482,

¶25

¶26

Criminal Misc. No.M-33449 of 2009 (O&M)

¶27

Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

¶28

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶29

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶30

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶31

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under

¶32

Criminal Misc. No.M-33449 of 2009 (O&M)

¶33

¶34

Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶35

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶36

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

¶37

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶38

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on

¶39

¶40

Criminal Misc. No.M-33449 of 2009 (O&M)

¶41

the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶42

Rule 24 of the Rules reads as under:-

¶43

24. Extraneous addition of colouring matter to be mentioned on the label:- Where an extraneous colouring matter has been added to any article of food, there shall be dispalayed one of the following statements in capital letters, just beneath the list of ingredients on the label attached to any package of food so coloured, namely:-

¶44

I) CONTAINS PERMITTED NATURAL COLOUR(S)

¶45

¶46

II) CONTAINS PERMITTED SYNTHETIC FOOD COLOUR (S)

¶47

¶48

III) CONTAINS PERMITTED NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC FOOD COLOUR(S)

¶49

¶50

IV)CONTAINS PERMITTED NATURAL/AND* SYNTHETIC* COLOUR(S)

¶51

(For the period upto and inclusive of 1st September, 2001)

¶52

(* Strike out whichever is not applicable)

¶53

Note:- Provided that where such a statement is displayed, the colour used in the product need not to be mentioned in the list of ingredients".

¶54

Thus, as per the above provision, whenever, an

¶55

extraneous colour matter has been added to any article of food, it had to be displayed on the lable of the packing as to whether the

¶56

¶57

Criminal Misc. No.M-33449 of 2009 (O&M)

¶58

natural colour has been used or synthetic colour has been used.

¶59

In the present case, a perusal of the report of the Public Analyst placed on record reveals that no synthetic colour was detected. The said opinion has been given in the column of 'added colour'. Since no synthetic colour was detected in the sample, the fact that it was not written on the sample that permitted synthetic food colour has been used loses its significance. The sample cannot be said to be misbranded. It is not a case where synthetic food colour was detected in the sample but the same had not been disclosed on the sample. Rather no synthetic colour was detected in the sample and in these circumstances it was not required by the manufacturer to mention on the sample that permitted synthetic food colour has been used.

¶60

Thus, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3 would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶61

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No.6 dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 as well as the summoning order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P-3) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner as well respondents No.2 and 3.

¶62

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶63

October 30, 2012

¶64

anita

Hom Made Baker'S v. Food Inspector (State of Punjab) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hom Made Baker'S v. Food Inspector (State of Punjab) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teja Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjinder Singh Vs Pb.St.

Tarlok Singh Vs Pb.St.

Jaswant Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Daljit Singh @ Bholi Vs State of Punjab

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab