ORDER
Narain Singh 'Azad', J.
1. The petitioners seek quashment of proceeding in Criminal Case No. 1525/90, pending against them, in the Court of C.J.M. Shahdol, for offences punishable Under Section 7 r/w Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. According to the prosecution, the sample of 'Red Kashmiri Chilly', purchased from non-applicant No. 2, by Food Inspector, Flying Squad, Shahdol, was found to be adulterated on analysis by State Public Analyst, Bhopal, on account of existence of non-permissible colour. The report of Public Analyst is marked as Annexure A/2. Since the aforesaid sample of 'Red Kashmiri Chilly' was found adulterated, the Food Inspector, filed the complaint against the non-applicant No. 2 Virendra Kumar Gupta and these petitioners, who were informed to be the seller and manufacturer respectively of aforesaid sample of Kashmiri Red Chilly. When the sample was Sent to Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad, for analysis, on account of presence of Insects, it was opined to be adulterated.
3. As per petitioners, the sample was packed in sealed containers on 13-10-1989, with expiry date of 12-6-90. The sample was taken on 14-12-89. The report of State Public Analyst is dated 10-1-90 and that of Director, Central Food Laboratory 18-9-91. The sanction of prosecution was accorded on 21-8-90 and complaint was filed on 14-11-90. The petitioners received the summons of the Court on 12-7-91. This opinion of State Public Analyst stood superseded by Director, Central Food Laboratory, that the sample contained non-permissible colour because as per report of Central Food Laboratory, existence of non-permissible colour was not noted. Of course, the presence of insects is noted by Central Food Laboratory but that alone does not make the sample adulterated, as explained by their Lordships of Supreme Court in cases reported in 1985 SCC (Cri) 289 : (1985 Cri LJ 921) and (1985) 2 SCC 589.
4. Great stress is laid by petitioners' counsel on this argument that a mere presence of insects does not make the sample adulterated. In support of this argument, my attention is drawn to State (Delhi) Administration v. Puranmal reported in, 1985 SCC (Cri) 289 : (1985 Cri LJ 921).
5. But after considering the various earlier pronouncements, it is found concluded by their Lordships of Supreme Court in aforesaid case that :--
'13. Even if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst does not support the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the lal mirchi powder was either worm-infested or insect-infested or that on account of presence of the meal worms the sample was unfit for human consumption. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement of Section 2(1)(f) of the Act.'
But in referred case, the sample was not opined to be adulterated even on account of presence of insects whereas, in the present case, the Director, Central Food Laboratory, has recorded the following opinion :--
'The sample shows presence of insects as mentioned above. The sample is thus adulterated.'
6. In result, the referred authority does not come to the rescue of the petitioners because on account of difference in report of Analysis, it is not found applicable to the present case. The Director, Central Food Laboratory, has clearly opined the sample to be adulterated on account of presence of insects and hence, no case requiring exercise of inherent powers for quashing the petitioner's prosecution in Criminal Case No. 1525/90, is found to have been made out by the petitioners.
7. Consequently, this petition has no merit, which is disallowed and rejected accordingly.