JUDGMENT Shiv Shanker, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the complaint and the proceedings arising therefrom in Case No. 4485 of 2007 under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act P.S. Bazar Khala, District Lucknow State v. Anil Jaiswal and Ors. pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam and have perused the record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Swaroop Cold Storage, Water Works Road, Aishbagh, Lucknow is the licensee of Cold Storage under the provisions of U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 and Sri Anil Jaiswal is the Manager of the above Swaroop Cold Storage, who are petitioner No. 1 and 2. It is further contended that Sri Praveen Kumar, Food Inspector, had forcibly taken sample of Khowa under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while Khowa belongs to one customer Sri Vijai resident of Khowa Mandi, P.S. Naka, District Lucknow. The said sample was sent to the public analyst, from where report has been received finding the said Khowa adulterated. Therefore, complaint has been filed against both the petitioners and one customer Sri Vijai named above. The work of the Cold Storage is only to keep the alleged food etc. for its preservation and the same Khowa was kept in the said Cold Storage for its preservation, which belongs to one customer Sri Vijai. Therefore, it has not been stored in the Cold Storage for sale. Therefore, the sample was taken by the food inspector will not come within the purview of store for sale. In such circumstances, no case was made out against the petitioners. However, they have been summoned for the trial upon the complaint filed by the food inspector. He has relied upon the decision of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Laxmi Narain Tandon etc. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 101- 104 of 1971 decided on 17th December, 1975) reported in Supreme Court on Food Adulteration Cases 1948-1997.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam has filed the counter- affidavit. He urged that the Khowa was stored for sale and the sample was sold by the petitioners after taking consideration and the petitioner No. 2 has signed upon Form No. VI as per rule- 12 of the above Rules. Therefore, he is estopped from saying that such sample was not sold to the Food Inspector. Therefore, public analyst report reveals that such sample was found adulterated. In such circumstances, prima- facie, the case is made out against the petitioners.
5. It is essential in deciding this matter, to reproduce Section 2(xiii) of the Act as under:
"Sale" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and whether by whole sale or retail, for human consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article;
6. It has also been provided under Section 7 of the above Act as under:
7. Prohibition of manufacturer, sale, etc. of certain articles of food - No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute:
(i) any adulterated food;
(ii) any misbranded food;
(iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence;
(iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health.
(v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or
(vi) any adulterant.
Explanation --- For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) or Clause (v) if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale.
7. According to the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party the sample was taken from the possession of the above petitioners after giving consideration and receipt was obtained. The petitioners gave their signature upon Form No. VI, which reveals that the sample was sold by the petitioners to the Food Inspector on payment of its cost.
8. It is admitted on behalf of the petitioners that the above Khowa has been kept in the Cold Storage only for the purposes of store and not for store for sale. In this regard, it was essential that the petitioners should give full details that such Khowa belongs to whom. In this regard name of the customer along with parentage and address should have been told to the Food Inspector so that the matter could be inquired into whether the petitioner is disclosing the correct name and address of the customer, to whom as alleged by the petitioners, the Khowa belonged. In the present case, the petitioner has only told the name of the customer (Sri Vijai, Khowa Mandi, Charbagh, Lucknow) to the Food Inspector. Merely on this description, it is not liable to be accepted, prima-facie, that Vijai was the customer of the petitioner and he kept such Khowa in Cold Storage of the petitioner. It is also not believable that the full name, parentage and address would not be entered in the register if kept in the Cold Storage. In the absence of full information of the alleged customer, it is not, prima-facie, liable to be accepted that the recovered stored Khowa belonged to one customer Vijai. It is worthwhile to mention here that 450 bags of Khowa weighing 200 quintal have been found in the Cold Storage. There is no evidence also on behalf of the petitioners to show that such customer Vijai had kept such Khowa in the Cold Storage of the petitioner. Therefore, prima-facie, it indicates that the same has been stored for the purposes of sale and not otherwise. The decision referred to above relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The sample was found adulterated as per public analyst report. In such circumstances, prima-facie, an offence under the Food Adulteration Act has been made out against the petitioners. It is the matter of evidence as to who is alleged customer namely Vijai. If he comes forward in the Court and admits that he had kept the said Khowa in the Cold Storage of the petitioners, in such circumstances, these facts can be looked into by the trial court. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, petition filed on behalf of both the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
9. The petition is, hereby, dismissed.