CRLP/8333/2009 of Madishetty Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2011

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2and 3 (For short, ‘A-2 and A-3’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seekingto quash proceedings in Calender Case No.248 of 2009, pending onthe file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani,Karimnagar District, registered for offences punishable under Sections7 (ii), 2 (ix) (k) and Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act, 1954 (For short, ‘The Act’) and Rule 32 (a) (1) ofPrevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

2. Whereas the petitioners are A-2 and A-3, the secondrespondent is the complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake ofconvenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Casehereafter.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : Thecomplainant was appointed and notified as the Food Inspector in theentire area of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No.146 HM & FWdepartment, dated 18-05-2004 and working as Food Inspector Division– II of Karimnagar district. While so, on 12-08-2008 at about 11-30a.m. the complainant along with his office attender inspected M/s. SaiSandeep Kirana store, situated at Nagapally cross road, Begumpet,Kamanpur mandal and found Sri K. Sudhakar, vendor and proprietor of that shop conducting business and the complainant disclosed hisidentity to the vendor and called one punch witness by name G.Shankaraiah and in the presence of vendor and the said witnessinspected the entire premises and found stock of 20 packets of refinedcooking oil, kept in a rack having the label declaration as “Arun GoldRefined Cooking Oil, net weight 1 liter, batch No.1, packed on August,2008, MRP Rs.75/- CSR, EOP/AP/Z VI/2009, best before six monthsfrom the date of packing, packed by M/s. Arun Enterprises, 10-1-221,Mangammathota, Siddipet, Medak district along with other food items”. Further, the complainant enquired about the nature and purpose ofstoring the stock of oil packets and the vendor disclosed that the oilpackets of Arun Gold Refined Cooking Oil were kept for sale forhuman consumption. Then the complainant suspecting Arun GoldRefined Cooking Oil packets to be adulterated and misbranded not inconformity with Rule 32 (a) (1) of Prevention of Food AdulterationRules, 1955 purchased 3 sealed packets of the same out of a stock of20 packets by paying cash of Rs.225/- and obtained cash receipt andacknowledged the signatures of the vendor and witness. Thereafter,he completed all the formalities as required under the Act and sent onesample to the R.F.S.L. Nacharam, Hyderabad which on analysis foundit to be adulterated and misbranded. Then the complainant obtainedwritten consent under Section 20 (1) of P.F.A. Act, 1954 from theDirector I.P.M. PH Labs and Food (Health) Administration,Hyderabad, later he/she launched prosecution against A-1 to A-3 videR.C. No.8645/FR/2008, dated 09-06-2008. Hence, A-1 to A-3 areliable to be punished for the alleged offences.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 that nonotice was given to A-2 and A-3 as contemplated under Rule 32 (a) (i)

of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 to inform them to takesteps to send the second sample for chemical examination to establishtheir innocence in the matter within six (6) months from the date ofcollecting the sample and thereby they were denied the opportunity todo so and as such merely mentioning the name of the manufacturer onthe label cannot form a basis for prosecuting A-2 and A-3 in theabsence of connecting link between A-2 and A-3 and the misbrandedand adulterated packets of cooking oil placing reliance upon decisionof this Court reported in T. Srihari Limited and others V. State of

A.P.[[1]]. It is further his contention that the complainant failed toproduce relevant bill in respect of purchase of the said three cookingoil packets. At the end he pleads that the proceedings are liable to bequashed, in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondents-State has opposed the application.

6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds arethere in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for?

7. It is not in dispute that so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, theprovisions of Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955were not followed and thereby they were not given opportunity to takesteps for sending the second sample for analysis and report to provetheir innocence in the case. In the decision cited supra, it is observedwith reference to relevant circumstances that the name of themanufacturer/supplier marketing agency found on the label of theproduct form basis for prosecuting them and in the absence of any linkbetween them and the adulterated product, the prosecution was liableto be quashed. The same principle holds good here. Therefore, no case is made out against A-2 and A-3 in the case and accordingly, theproceedings are liable to be quashed, in so far as they are concerned.

Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petitionis allowed quashing the proceedings in Calender Case No.248 of2009, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass at Manthani, Karimnagar District, in so far as A-2 and A-3 areconcerned.

__________________________

Dated:29-12-2011.Dsh.

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

247

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8333 OF 2009

December, 29, 2011

DSH

[1]2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 459 (A.P.)