Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954  - Section 16 (1)

Adulteration of food - Cognizance taken - Prayer for quashing of cognizance - Held, according to the prosecution, the appellant, a Superintendent of Jail, had stored Rice and Haldi and, therefore, his act came within the mischief of ss. 7 and 16 of the Act - Thus, what needed to be decided was as to whether the expression 'store' as used in ss. 7 and S. 16 of the Act would mean storage simplicitor or storage for sale - The Act was intended to prohibit and penalise the sale of any adulterated article of food - SC was of the opinion, that 'storage' of an adulterated article of food other than for sale did not come within the mischief of s.16 of the Act - In view of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon, relied on - In the case in hand, it was not the allegation that the appellant had stored Haldi and Rice for sale - Therefore, allegations made did not constitute any offence and, hence, the prosecution of the appellant for an offence u/s. 16(1)(a) of the Act should be an abuse of the process of the Court - Appeals allowed.

Topic(s)-Cognizance – Food Adulteration – Quashed