M Sarojini Ammal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

2. Shri M. Nagalingam Manthrisabai s/o. M. Manickavel, Age. 54 years, Occ. Importer, Partner, M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons, 58, Ramamoorthy Road, Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.

¶10

3. Shri M. Mathavan s/o. M. Manickavel, Age. 50 years, Occ. Importer/Partner, M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons, 58, Ramamoorthy Road, Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.

¶11

4. Smt. M. Sarojini Ammal Age. 72 years, Occ. Importer/Partner, M/s. M.M. Nagalingam Refineries 123, Katchery Road, Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.

¶12

5. M/s. M.M. Nagalingam Refineries a registered Partnership firm, 123, Katchery Road, Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.

¶13

	( 2 )		crwp499.07
`6.`	`M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons,` `A branch name of the` `partnership firm` `M/s. M.M. Nagalingam Refineries` `102/C, 32, A. Bhavanipeth,` `Ghongdi Vasti, Solapur.` `Tal. & Dist. Solapur.` `Versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra`	`..`	`Respondents`
`2.`	`Food Inspector, Nanded,` `Food and Drugs Dept.` `WITH`
	`CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.`	`71`	`OF 2008`
`1.`	`Smt. M. Sarojini Ammal` `Age. 72 years, Occ. Importer/partn` `M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons,` `58, Ramamoorthy Road,` `Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.`	`er,`	`..` `Petitioners`
`2.`	`Shri M. Nagalingam Manthrisabai` `s/o. M. Manickavel, Age. 54 years,` `Occ. Importer, Partner,` `M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons,` `Solapur, Maharashtra AND` `58, Ramamoorthy Road,` `Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.`
`3.`	`Shri M. Mathavan` `s/o. M. Manickavel, Age. 50 years,` `Occ. Importer/Partner,` `M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons,` `Solapur, Maharashtra, AND`
	`58, Ramamoorthy Road,` `Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.`

¶14

( 3 ) crwp499.07

¶15

`4.`	`M/s. M.M. Nagalingam Refineries,` `a registered partnership firm,` `123, Katchery Road,` `Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu,` `Branch at M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons,` `Solapur, Maharashtra.`
`5.`	`M/s. Yentop Manickavel Sons,` `A branch name of the` `partnership firm` `M/s. M.M. Nagalingam Refineries` `Ghongdi Vasti, Solapur.`
`6.`	`M/s. M.M. Nagalingam Refineries` `a registered Partnership firm,` `123 E, Katchery Road,` `Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu.`
`7.`	`Shri K.R. Ravichandran,` `Nominee of M/s. M.M. Nagalingam Refineries,` `123-E, Katchery Road,` `Virudunagar (Tamilnadu).` `Versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra` `..` `Respondents`
`2.`	`Food Inspector, Dhule,` `Food and Drugs Dept.`
`Mr.`	`A.H. Kasliwal h/f. Mrs. Netrali N. Gangwal (Jain), Advocate for` `the petitioners.` `Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.P.P. for respondent/State.`
	`CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.` `DATED :` `27.04.2012`
`ORAL`	`JUDGMENT :-`
`1.`	`By consent of both the sides, these petitions`
`are`	`taken up for final disposal. Submissions are heard.`

¶16

( 4 ) crwp499.07

¶17

Both these petitions can be disposed of by this common
judgment because most of the facts are similar.

¶18

2.The petitioners in both these cases are accused
in two different cases. The Food Inspector – respondent
No.2- in each petition had filed criminal case against
the petitioners for offences punishable under sections 7
(i) r/w 2 (ia) (a), 2 (ia) (m), 16 and 17 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and rules
thereunder. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are manufacturers of
Vanaspati Ghee. Their product is sold under brand name
“Yentop”. In both these cases on 17.08.2006 and
10.10.2006 the Food Inspector at Nanded and Dhule took
samples of Yentop Vanaspati Ghee from the other
petitioners who are traders in food articles. Soon after
taking samples, they were sent for chemical analysis. In
Nanded case, Chemical Analyzer report reached Public
Analyst on 28.09.2006 and in Dhule case the report of
Chemical Analyzer reached the Public Analyst on
05.12.2006. Thereafter, the Food Inspector in both the
cases further investigated in the cases. In Nanded case
complaint was lodged on 08.08.2007 and in Dhule case the
complaint was lodged on 04.01.2008. Soon thereafter
these petitions were filed asserting that no offence is
made out against the petitioners and the cases should be
quashed and set aside.

¶19

( 5 ) crwp499.07

¶20

3.At admission stage, the petitions were heard at
length. Rule and ad-interim relief were granted.

¶21

4.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
asserted that due to delay caused in filing of the
complaint from the date of taking sample and from the
date of receipt of report of Chemical Analysis, the
petitioner’s valuable right under section 13 (2) of the
Act has been lost and therefore the proceedings should
not be allowed to proceed further.

¶22

5.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. asserted that
the provisions of section 13 (2), if read with rule 7 (3)
of the Act, are directory and not mandatory. He placed
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
T.V. Usman Vs. Food Inspector, Tellicherry Municipality
Tellicherry, PFA (3) 1994 (I)1. Reliance on this judgment
is misplaced and the following discussion of facts and
law would clarify it.

¶23

6. The facts as mentioned above are admitted.
There is certainly delay in filing of complaint in both
these cases from the date of receipt of Chemical
Analyzer’s report. In both these cases the complaints
are lodged almost after 11 months after receipt of

¶24

( 6 ) crwp499.07

¶25

Chemical Analyzer’s report. It is also not in dispute
that shelf life of commodity is only of six months. In
both these cases the product was manufactured in June,
2006 and it was consumable for six months thereafter.
So, the shelf life of the commodity expired in December,
2006. Admittedly, prior thereto the samples were taken
and were also sent for chemical analysis. Even the
chemical analysis was conducted within six month’s shelf
life time of the product. However, the complaint was not
lodged within those crucial six months when the commodity
was good for human consumption. Had complaint been filed
within those six months period, the petitioner/accused
could have got it reanalyzed by using their rights
mentioned in section 13 (2) of the Act. Section 13 (2)
reads as under :-

¶26

“On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis
under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of
food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall
after the institution of prosecution against the persons
from whom the sample of the article of food was taken
and the person, if any, whose name, address and other
particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A,
forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of
the report of the result of the analysis to such person
or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or
persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them
may make an application to the Court within a period of
ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the
report to get the sample of the article of food kept by
the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central
Food Laboratory.”

¶27

7.Admittedly, prior to filing of the complaint,
respondent No.2-Food Inspector did not contact the
petitioners that the Chemical Analyzer’s report in
respect of food article taken from their shops was not
confirming the standard. Thus, they were not aware as to
whether the food article was found adulterated or
otherwise. They learnt about it only after they received
summons from the Court. It is only then their rights
under section 13(2) of the Act got accrued to them. They
could have made application to the Court within ten days
from the receipt of summons/copy of report for getting
the sample re-analyzed from Central Food Laboratory.
But, since the complaint was lodged almost after 11 to 13
months, the sample had lost its food value and there was
no propriety in sending such expired food article for
chemical analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. Thus,
the petitioners lost their valuable right of getting the
food article examined/analyzed again. They, thus, lost
an opportunity to make an attempt to prove that the
article was not adulterated at all. The Supreme Court in
the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ghisa Ram
(AIR 1967 S.C.970), held that the prosecution should not
be conducted in such a manner which would frustrate
statutory right of the accused.

¶28

8.Section 13 (2) of the Act quoted above clearly

¶29

( 8 ) crwp499.07

¶30

states that a copy of public analyst’s report should be
served on the accused only after filing of the complaint.
So prior thereto there was no possibility of showing or
serving a copy of public analyst report to the accused.
Therefore, the right of getting sample re-examined would
accrue only after the complaint is filed. Similar was the
situation in the case of Shivkumar @ Shiwalamal Narumal

¶31

Chugwani & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (3)
Bom.C.R. (Cri) 103. In detail judgment, the learned
Single Judge of this Court examined number of cases of
similar nature. He examined the law on the subject and
held that violation of statutory rights arising from
section 13 (2) is fatal to the prosecution. In this case
also same would be the result.

¶32

9.Hence, both the criminal writ petitions are
allowed and disposed of. Rule made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (B) in both the petitions.

¶33

[A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]

¶34

snk/2012/APR12/crwp499.07

¶35

***

M Sarojini Ammal and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sarojini Ammal and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S D Natwarlal and Co. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Jayesh@Gulan Sukhevrao Shinde and Ors. Vs Appropriatte Authority Dr Rameshchandra Kisan Savkare and Anr.

Shakir Hasan Sayyad and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Bhaulal Shamlal Tarte and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Devidas Balasaheb Patil Vs Dr. Santosh Ramchandra Tengle

Sakharam S/O. Motiram Wawhale Vs the State of Maharashtra