Allowed

Bhushan Prasad v. Food Inspector Sathyamangalam

Madras HC9 Sept 2014CRL RC/542/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings alleging false representation on food labels. Relying on previous decisions, the Court held that the label statements did not violate PFA Rules 37 or 39 as they were not medical recommendations. Consequently, all criminal proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case, connected miscellanous petition were allowed and the entire case in C.C.No.181 of 2006 was quashed.

Bhushan Prasad Vs Food Inspector Sathyamangalam — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C. No.542 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008

¶6

Bhushan Prasad .. Petitioner/Accused-3 Vs. Food Inspector, Sathyamangalam Municipality, Sathyamangalam .. Respondent/Complainant

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w.Sec.401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, in C.M.P.No.1861 of 2007 in C.C.No.181 of 2006.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sivanandaraj

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Govt.Advocate(Crl.side)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This revision challenges the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, in C.M.P.No.1861 of 2007, on 10.12.2007. Petitioner is the third accused and the case is prosecuted for offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), & (ii) read with Sec.2(ix)(k) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 37 and 39 of PFA Rules, 1955.

¶12

In sum and substance, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that this petitioner/third accused, producing a wheat product by name 'New Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta', had in the label of packages made a representation that 'Whole Wheat Atta is Good for your Family's Heart'. In dismissing the petition for discharge, the Court below had been of the view that at the stage of filing charges it was not required to conduct any elaborate enquiry or apprise the probative value of evidence and that the accused would have sufficient opportunity to contradict the evidence as also the Public Analyist's opinion and the materials before it at the stage of trial.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

This Court had occasion to consider a question similar to one raised by the petitioner, in Crl.O.P.No.2098 of 2011 etc., batch and the order of this Court therein observes thus:

¶15

"6. Regarding violation of Rule 39 of PFA Rules is concerned, recommendation found in the label that "Pillsburry Chakki Fresh Atta Whole Wheat Atta is Good for Your Family's Heart" is not in respect of contents of the sample, but is in respect of Whole Wheat Atta. Further, the statement printed in the label that "Endorsed by Heart Care Foundation of India" is general in nature and Heart Care foundation of India is a Non Governmental Organisation founded in 1986, which was created for the objective of creating awareness about all aspects of health in all walks of life and the statement printed in the label cannot be construed as recommendation by the medical profession or prescribed or approved by medical practitioners for medical purpose. The nature of the duties performed by the Heart Care Foundation of India is entirely different from the Medical professional or Medical practitioners, as such, neither Rule 37 nor Rule 39 is controverted by the words and by printing the same on the label in question.

¶16

7.As far as the complaint filed by the respondent is concerned, the same is nothing but reproduction of the opinion of the Public Analyst. Out High Court, in similar circumstances, in the decision reported in Indian Kanoonhttp://indiankanoon.org/doc/1966248 (K.Ganesan and Other v. The Food Inspector, Periyakulam Municipality, Theni District) cited on the side of the petitioners, arrived at the conclusion that the impugned complaint did not make out any prima facie case that the sample was misbranded, as such, the prosecution lodged against the petitioners therein would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of court and accordingly quashed the proceedings.

¶17

Thus, applying the same view of our High Court to the present case this court is of the view that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in all the five cases are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed, not only against the petitioners herein, but also other accused, who are not party to the criminal proceedings."

¶18

4.Being in agreement with the view above expressed and of the view that the same applies on all fours in the present case, the present revision petition shall stand allowed. Considering that the

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

other accused in the case would stand on similar footing, the entire case in C.C.No.181 of 2006, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, shall stand quashed. This criminal revision case is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
Dated: 25.09.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Sathyamangalam.
2.The Food Inspector,
Sathyamangalam Municipality,
Sathyamangalam.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.J.Sivanandaraj,Advocate,SR.43147.
gr(co)
krd 26/9
Crl.R.C. No.542 of 2008

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Bhushan Prasad v. Food Inspector Sathyamangalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan Prasad v. Food Inspector Sathyamangalam

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

P.Senapathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kabar @Abdul Kabar Vs K.Boominathan

Castrol India Ltd. Vs Pemier Steel& Allied Industrie

Venkata Saravanan Alias Vs the Inspector of Police

Martin Felix Celvia Vs K.Kumar

Anandan @ Douglas Devananda Vs the Inspector of Police