w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Navneet Iodized Salt Works Through its Proprietor Sushil Kumar Kala, Gulab Kunj v/s State of Uttaranchal / Uttarakhand


Company & Directors' Information:- J. H. SALT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24304GJ2017PTC098127

Company & Directors' Information:- M H SALT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400MH2014PTC256882

Company & Directors' Information:- H. A. SALT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24304GJ2017PTC098166

Company & Directors' Information:- M. SALT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909CT2020PTC009865

Company & Directors' Information:- KUNJ AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL1979PTC009473

Company & Directors' Information:- KALA KUNJ PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1956PTC009712

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. K. SALT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24304GJ2017PTC098217

Company & Directors' Information:- NAVNEET (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17219WB1976PTC030456

    Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 234 of 2006

    Decided On, 10 June 2010

    At, High Court of Uttaranchal

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT

    For the Appearing Parties: D.K. Sharma, M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 21.09.2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, so far as it relates to summoning of the present petitioner in Criminal Case No. 2800 of 2001, relating to offence punishable under Section 7 / 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the parties.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that on 23.05.2001, at about 10:30 A.M., respondent No. 2 (Food Inspector) came to the shop of Salim Khan at Rudrapur, and purchased a packet of iodized salt for analysis, in the presence of witness Mani Ram. In making purchase and sealing the samples, necessary rules were complied with, and a sample was sent for chemical analysis, after The Public Analyst, affixing the code slip etc. Lucknow, vide his report dated 4th of July 2001, declared that no adulteration was found in the item sent for chemical analysis. However, it was found that there was violation of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as month and batch number of packing and 'Use best before up to month and year', was not disclosed on the product. Though, the sample was purchased from one Salim Khan, who is facing the trial, the present petitioner Navneet Iodized Salt Works appears to have been summoned to face the trial as he disclosed name of manufacturer of the salt sold by Salim Khan to the Food Inspector.

(4.) Attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure 4 to the petition, which is copy of the voucher / bill No. 41 dated 23.05.2001, issued by Navneet Iodized Salt Works to M/s Pakeeza Iodine Salt Store, Rudrapur, which shows that 320 packets of salt were sold by the petitioner to M/s Pakeeza Iodine Salt Store. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is hard to believe that the salt which was sent on 23.05.2001 by the petitioner company in Rajasthan, got purchased by the Food Inspector on the same day from Salim Khan in Rudrapur (Uttarakhand), at 10:30 A.M. In support of said argument it is further pointed out that the report of the Public Analyst (coy of which is Annexure 5 to the petition) further discloses that the packed Iodized salt which was sent for analysis disclosed that it was a product packaged by 'Gagan Salt Kolkata'. As to this fact there is no explanation in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as to how in a product purported to have been packaged by 'Gagan Salt Kolkata', the present petitioner i.e. Navneet Iodized Salt Works of Sambhar Lake, Rajasthan, is liable to be prosecuted.

(5.) In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner Navneet Iodized Salt Works, Rajasthan, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the proceedings as against the present petitioner Navneet Iodized Salt Works, Rajasthan, in Criminal Case No. 2800 of 2001, relating to offence punishable under Section 6 /17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
O R