Allowed

R.Chandrasekaran v. D.Gopal

Madras HC12 Mar 2015CRL OP/27990/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners, grocery shop owners, who faced charges of selling misbranded rava. The court held that misbranding was a fault of the manufacturer regarding label dates, not the seller. Relying on a prior order where the manufacturer was acquitted, the court allowed the petition to protect the petitioners from prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; C.C.No.97 of 2007 quashed as against the petitioners.

R.Chandrasekaran Vs D.Gopal — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:12.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.27990 of 2009

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶8

1.R. Chandrasekaran 2.A. Jeevarathinam .. Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

¶9

Vs. State rep. By D. Gopal The Food Inspector 3^rd Grade Municipality Dharapadavedu Vellore -6 Vellore District. .. Respondent/Complainant. Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the proceedings in C.C.No.97 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.III Vellore.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.K.V. Sridharan For Respondent : Mr. M. Maharaja Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶11

The petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.97 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.III Vellore.

¶12

The respondent filed the above case under Sections 7(ii) & 16(1) (a) (i) r/w Section 2 (ix) (k) and also Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a grocery shop and on 02.11.2001, at about 12.00 p.m., the respondent/Food Inspector purchased the Narasus rava which was displayed for consumption, for the purpose of analysis and three bags of one kilo Narasus rava was purchased from the petitioners and after complying with the Rules regarding taking of samples and packing of samples in the presence of witness, the respondent-Food Inspector sent the sample for analysis and got report in Form III No.658/01-02 dated 18.02.2001 stating that the sample was found to be misbranded and violative of Rule 32 of the Prevention of

¶14

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

¶15

Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955 and specifically, it has been stated that the label declaration is to the following effect “Best For Consumption within Two Months from the date of packing” - But the declaration shall be “Best Before ........... Month/Year or Best Before ..........Months from Packaging/Manufacture, instead of stating so in the label, it was only mentioned as two months from the date of packing and therefore, it is misbranded within the definition of Section 2 (ix) (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the prosecution was launched after complying with the other formalities.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, prosecution was launched against the petitioner as well as the manufacturer, who was arrayed as A3 and the manufacturer filed CRL.O.P.No.21430 of 2007 to quash the prosecution in C.C.No.97 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.III Vellore and that application was allowed by this Court by order dated 27.04.2007 and the misbranding was due to the Act committed by the third accused, who failed to follow Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955 and the petitioner being the seller, cannot be blamed for misbranding.

¶17

The learned counsel, therefore submitted that when the manufacturer was acquitted, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for misbranding and therefore, the petition may be allowed.

¶18

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that having regard to the order passed in CRL.O.P.No.21430 of 2007 dated 27.04.2007, this petition also has to be allowed.

¶20

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner is a vendor and petitioner purchased the article from the third accused. The charge against the petitioner and third accused was that the article was misbranded and the nature of misbranding was that in the cover, date of use was not properly mentioned as per Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, 1955.

¶21

According to me, the petitioner, who is a vendor cannot be blamed for such misbranding of the cover and only the manufacturer can be blamed. It is admitted that the charge against A3 was quashed and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to receive the same benefit. Hence, this criminal petition is allowed and the C.C.No.97 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.III Vellore is quashed as against the petitioner.

¶22

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

¶23

In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

gv
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
Dt:30/3/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, No.III,
Vellore.
2. The Food Inspector
3 rd Grade Municipality
Dharapadavedu
Vellore -6
Vellore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.V.Sridharan, Advocate SR 14546
gr(co)
prk31/3
CRL.O.P.No.27990 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶25

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

R.Chandrasekaran v. D.Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Chandrasekaran v. D.Gopal

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

Case details

Similar cases

Prabu Vs the Inspector of Police

Prabhu Vs State Rep by

V.Vijayaragavan Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Ganesh Vs the Inspector of Police

Tmt.Sridevi Vs Government of Tamilnadu

K.Sundaramoorthy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police