Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
The High Court was moved for quashing the companyplaints.
Stand of the present appellants was that the quantum of artificial sweetener exceeded the maximum limit of artificial sweetener.
The present respondents had stored the food articles in the business premises with the intention to sell them and had actually sold the articles to the Food Inspector.
On receiving the companyplaints the companycerned Magistrates registered the companyplaints and issued process.
The samples were sent to the public analyst and the report was received showing that the food product of samples which were companylected companytained Saccharin.
It was indicated in the companyplaints that the Food Inspector had gone to the shop of the respondents and had obtained sample in accordance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in short the Rules .
The use of Saccharin or addition thereof in a food product was impermissible and food articles companytaining Saccharin which was number permitted to be used made the food article adulterated.
It was therefore submitted that if it is treated as Pan Masala it fulfills the requisite standard.
It was the stand of the applicants that the sample did number companytain any prohibited substance and the food article was number adulterated.
The stand was that the food product in respect of which the samples were companylected was really a Pan Masala and, therefore, has to be companystrued as such.
The cases were instituted on the basis of companyplaints filed for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 1 and 7 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in short the Act .
The High Court accepted the prayer on the ground that the companyplaint did number disclose any offence.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing seven applications filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
In the applications prayer was made to quash the proceedings pending before four Judicial Magistrates and one Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom three proceedings were pending.
