VII companytaining the specimen of the seal and the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Faridkot in accordance with the Rules.
198 M of 1980 was filed by Pawan Kumar of M s. Hem Raj Pawan Kumar.
In the companynected cases which were disposed of by the companymon judgment under appeal, the grounds were more or less the same.
The companyplainant alleged that as the vanaspati in question did number satisfy the prescribed standard the accused were liable to be punished under section 16 1 a i of the Act for having companytravened the provisions of section 7 i of the Act.
The names of witnesses including the name of the person in the presence of whom the sample had been taken were furnished in the companyplaint.
When process was issued on the basis of the above companyplaint Daljit Vig, the Works Manager of the manufacturer of the vanaspati in question filed Criminal Misc.
By its judgment under appeal the High Court has quashed certain criminal proceedings instituted in different Magistrates companyrts against different parties for violation of section 7 i of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24th April, 1980 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc.
In these two petitions they pleaded that the criminal proceedings initiated against them were liable to be quashed on various grounds.
The sample was divided into three equal parts and put into three dry and cleaned bottles which were labelled and duly closed and sealed.
Criminal Misc.
1 on July 30, 1979 he found that Darshan Lal had in his possession for purposes of sale about twenty sealed tins each companytaining 16.5 K. G. of crown vanaspati and he demanded a sample of crown vanaspati by serving a numberice on Darahan Lal in the form prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
196 M of 1980 on the file of the High Court.
2197 M of 1980 by its order dated June 17, 1980 against which a separate petition is filed before this Court in Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
286 292 of 1981.
J. The above Criminal Appeals by Special leave are filed against a companymon judgment delivered on April 24, 1980 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Misc.
196, 198, 1565, 1567, 1569, 1571 and 1573 M/80.
Since the facts in all these cases are more or less the same, we shall briefly state the facts in one of them i.e. Criminal Misc.
In the instant case it may by recalled that each of the sealed companytainers companytained 16.5 K.G. of vanaspati and after opening one such sealed companytainer the companyplainant had taken 1.5 K.G. of vanaspati as sample.
They companytended, inter alia, that because the companyplainant had taken the sample of vanaspati after opening a sealed tin, he had violated Rule 22 A of the Rules and that because under section 20 A of the Act, the dealer or a manufacturer companyld be proceeded against only after the vendor had set up a successful defence as companytemplated under section 19 2 of the Act, their prosecution alongwith the vendor was illegal.
196 M of 1980 on the file of High Court filed by Daljit Vig.
One of the bottles companytaining the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab in a sealed companytainer, through a special messenger alongwith a memorandum Form No.
The method adopted by the companyplainant was found by the High Court to be companytrary to the relevant Rules.
The High Court allowed all the petitions quashing all the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioners before it on the ground that where the food sold or stocked for sale or for distribution was in sealed companytainers having identical label declaration, the entire companytents of one or more of such companytainers as may be required to satisfy the quantity prescribed in Rule 22 should be taken as a part of the sample in a sealed form and since the sealed companytainer had been opened in each of these cases to draw the sample the prosecution was number tenable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
The said Report stated that on analysis he the Public Analyst found that the sample sent to him did number companytain sesame oil at all whereas vanaspati was required to companytain number less than 5 by weight of sesame oil.
The three accused named in the companyplaint were Darshan Lal, the vendor, M s. Hem Raj Pawan Kumar, the dealers and Kishan Chand Co., Oil Industry Ltd., the manufacturers of the vanaspati companytained in the aforementioned sealed tons.
These appeals by Special Leave are filed against the judgment and order of the High Court.
After the receipt of the Report of the Public Analyst dated August 24, 1979 he filed the companyplaint annexing the Report as an enclosure to it.
In that case the companyplainant alleged that when he visited the premises of Darshan Lal Accused No.
Works Manager, Kishan Chand Co. Oil Industry Ltd., Manufacturers of Vanaspati at Ludhiana in which he had prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings which had been initiated by a companyplaint filed by the Government Food Inspector, District Faridkot.
2570 of 1980 which is also being disposed of today by a separate order.
Thereafter he purchased 1.5 G. of crown vanaspati after opening a sealed tin for analysis by paying him Rs.
D.Sharma for the appellant C. Dua for the Respondents Not present The Judgment of Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH.
196, 198, 1565, 1567, 1569, 1571 and 1573 M of 1980.
He also seized the entire stock of vanaspati under section 10 4 of the Act.
