High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 6712/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA Heard Mr PK Roy, the learned counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Ms HM Phukan, the State counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4. None h as appeared on behalf of the respondent No.3. Although the matter is pending since the date of entertainment on 21.9.05 with s tay order in respect of the CR Case No.2226 of 2002, pending in the Court of Add l Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar none of the respondents have respon ded to this proceeding. Thus, their stand in the matter is not discernable. The challenge in this writ petition is to the proceeding in CR Case No.2226/2002 under Section-7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioners are the FCI officials, namely, the District Manager and the Assi stant Manager. They have prayed for quashing the aforesaid proceeding with fram ing of charge for their actions, which they had taken pursuant to the Annexure-A communication dated nil of April, 1998 of the then Minister, Chemicals & Fe rtilizers to the Govt of India, New Delhi.
Legal Reasoning
Due to unseasonable and continuous rain during kharif marketing season 1 997-98 in almost all rice producing States of the country, huge quantity of padd y were badly affected from rains. The concerned rice producing State Govts. ther efore, requested the Central Govt. for relaxation of the Uniform Specification o f Rice. The Central Govt thereafter, by undertaking necessary laboratory testing , through the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer advised the Chief Ministers of all the Sates of Indian Union including the seven North Eastern States to accep t the said rice procured for Central Pool Under Relaxed Specification (URS) for TPDS and other welfare schemes of the State Govt. from the FCI godown. In terms of the aforesaid directions of the Govt of India, stocks of URS rice wa s received in various districts of Assam including Silchar and has undertaken th e process of sale. The District Manager, FCI, Silchar informed the Deputy Commis sioner of Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi and also sub-divisional officer of L akhimpur that rice stock Under Relaxed Specification (URS) sold to private parti es, is in the process of lifting and though the rice was not unfit for human co nsumption, yet it is not meant for APL, BPL and TPDS items. The said District au thorities were requested to inform their nominees about the same and to make the m particularly aware that if under any circumstances URS rice is found available in the fair price shops etc., FCI would not be responsible. The sale process wa s undertaken after due notification in the newspapers. The Deputy Commissioners were informed vide letter dated 14.9.2001. Before the sale as aforesaid could be undertaken, on 28.9.2001, the Seni or Food Inspector, Office of the Joint Director, Health Service, Cachar and coll ected the samples of the said URS rice, when Shri D.R. Biswas, the petitioner No .3 was Asstt. Manager, Incharge of the godown and Shri N.R. Pradhan was the Dist rict Manager, FCI. The Sr Food Inspector, who collected the sample of URS rice, thereafter filed the complaint against the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners t hat the said complaint was filed without taking into account the aforesaid relev ant facts and the learned Trial Court also in a routine manner issued process. A ccording to the petitioners, they had believed that upon responding to the proce ss and explaining the circumstances they would be discharged from the proceeding . In this connection, they have referred to the deposition made by the PW-3. In his deposition it is categorically stated that URS rice was not for public distr ibution. However, ignoring the same the learned Trial Court framed a charge unde r Section-7/16 of the PFA Act against which petitioners preferred the instant wr it petition. Referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition, Mr PK Roy, the learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that without the particular action on the part of the petitioners being backed by the approval accorded in a partic ular situation, the said action could not have been subjected to the aforesaid p roceeding. Referring to the provisions of Section-7/16 of the aforesaid Act, he has also submitted that on the face of it the charge against the petitioners is not maintainable. Ms HM Phukan, the State counsel, on the other hand, submits that since charge ag ainst the petitioners has been framed, the proceeding should be allowed to conti nue, in which the petitioners in their participation will get ample opportunitie s to prove their stand. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and the materials on recor d. The documents referred to above required a particular action on the part of t he authorities. It was a part of the said action, the petitioners had undertaken the particular exercise. That apart, the PW-3 in his deposition having categori cally stated that the URS rice was not for public distribution the learned Court erred in issuing process without considering that aspects of the matter. That a part, Section-7 prohibits manufacture, sale etc of certain articles of food incl uding adulteration food and misbranded food only. Section 16 has prescribed penalties in respect of the manufactures for sales or stores of articles of food which is adulatory etc. As per the report of the public analyst there is also variation in respect of th e stipulation made in Appendix-B of PFA Act, 1955. The statistics did conform to the requirement of the prescription made in the said Appendix-B.
Decision
As noted above, the proceeding is under order of stay for all these years since 2005. The respondents have also not responded to this proceeding. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the proceeding in CR Case No. 2226/2002 registered under Section 7/16 of the PFA Ac t, 1954 and pending in the Court of the learned Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. The petitioners shall stand discharged from the said proceeding .