Allowed

V.Vedagiri, Aged About v. Union of India, Rep. by

Madras HC16 Nov 2021CRL OP/19965/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a food distributor, relying on previous orders that quashed charges against the manufacturer and licensee in the same factum due to mandatory statutory delay violations under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioner in SMMF No.1 of 2008 quashed.

V.Vedagiri, Aged About Vs Union of India, Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.19965 OF 2017 AND

¶6

CRL.M.P.NOS.12046 & 12047 OF 2017

¶7

V.Vedagiri ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Union of India rep. by Chief Health Inspector and Food Inspector, Egmore Railway Station, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 008.

¶10

The Chief Medical Superintendent, (Local Health Authority), Railways, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER:

¶12

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to SMMF No.1 of 2008 on the file of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ribbon Building, Chennai – 600 003 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar, Standing Counsel for Railways

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in SMMF.No.1of 2008 on the file of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai as against the petitioner.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the third accused in the above case and as against the second and fourth accused, this Court has already quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.17931 of 2017 on 31.08.2017 and in Crl.O.P.No.3 of 2009 on 06.01.2009 and hence, the charges against the petitioner has also to be quashed.

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner along with other accused have been prosecuted for violating the mandatory provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and this Court has quashed the proceedings against the A2, who is a manufacturer and A4, who is a licensee and the same benefit has to be extended to the present petitioner.

¶18

This Court while quashing the charge against A2 manufacturer in Cr.O.P.No.3 of 2009 on 22.03.2017 relying on the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Rattan Lal Vs. Sate of Himachal Pradesh reported in FAC 1991 [I] 179 has held that it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to have the samples analyzed and the prosecutions launched with inordinate delay taking the accused right to get the sample tested from the Director of Central Food Laboratory would tantamount to denial of his valuable and mandatory right under section 13 [2] of the Act and delay in such matters against the express mandatory provisions made in law and the Rules have to be tested with full deference and cannot be given a go-by in a light-hearted fashion and quashed the charges against A2 and subsequently, based on the above Order, in Crl.O.P.No. 17931 of 2017 on 31.08.2017, the charges against A4, who is a licensee, has also been quashed.

¶19

Considering the above and as the charges against the manufacturer and the licensee have already been quashed, the petitioner, who is A3 and who is a distributor is also entitled to such a benefit and the charges against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in SMMF.No.1of 2008 on the file of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai as against the petitioner is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

vrc/kbs

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Chief Health Inspector and Food Inspector, Egmore Railway Station, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 008. 3. The Chief Medical Superintendent, (Local Health Authority), Railways, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. +1cc to Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar,, Advocate, S.R.No.58825 +1cc to Mr.K.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.59106

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.19965 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12046 & 12047 of 2017

¶29

PMK(CO) PM/21/12/2021

¶30

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

V.Vedagiri, Aged About v. Union of India, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vedagiri, Aged About v. Union of India, Rep. by

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

Nandhi Varman, A/45YRS, Vs v.Raju

Mr.Ramesh (M/33) Vs State Rep.by

Nalini Sundararaman Vs M/S.Sri Vari Villas Private

Thangamalar, F/A-52 Yrs Vs P.C.Kailash Chand Jain

V.S.Jayararaman, M/74 Vs the State Rep.by

Balasubramaniyam (37) Vs State Rep. by