Dismissed

M/s. Sun Beverages, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Nov 2011CRLP/8827/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for food adulteration were dismissed. The court held that the question of notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is a question of fact for the trial court, not for quashing in this court.

What did the court decide?

All Criminal Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

M/s. Sun Beverages, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8827 of 2008

¶3

And

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8828 of 2008

¶5

And

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8840 of 2008

¶7

COMMON ORDER:

¶8

The petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are accused of three different offences under Section 7(i) and (ii), 2(ia)(m), 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, for violating Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The 1^st petitioner is Manufacturer and the 2^nd petitioner is Licence Holder for manufacture of misbranded Bisleri with added minerals. After colleting the samples from the respective shopkeepers, the samples were sent for analysis. The public analyst after analysis, gave reports opining that the samples do not conform to the standards of Aerobic microbial count and Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and is therefore adulterated as per Section 2(ia)(m) and misbranded as per Section 2(ix)

¶9

(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

¶10

2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the complainant/Food Inspector did not give mandatory statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and that therefore, the complaints are vitiated. It is further contended that in case second opportunity is not given to the petitioners for sending second sample to Central Food Laboratory for analysis, then valuable defence of the petitioners/accused is lost causing serious prejudice to the petitioners.

¶11

3. Whether notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is given or not, is a question of fact. This Court in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot entertain a disputed question of fact. It is a matter of proof before the Magistrate in the respective cases. It is contended that list of documents filed along with the respective charge sheets does not show giving of such notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is expected to be given after institution of the prosecution i.e. after filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance of the same for the offences mentioned therein by the Magistrate. Therefore, there is no possibility of mentioning

¶12

notice under Section 13(2) of the Act in the list appended to the charge sheet. In that view of the matter, these are matters which are to be agitated before the respective Magistrates during trial. There are no grounds in law for quashing the proceedings pending in the lower Court.

¶13

4. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

¶14

_______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶15

Dt:17.11.2011 ysk

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8827 of 2008

¶18

And

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8828 of 2008

¶20

And

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8840 of 2008

¶22

Dt:17.11.2011

¶23

ysk

M/s. Sun Beverages, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sun Beverages, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. P.Sadanand, Vs The State of A.P.

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Veeramalla Umamaheswara Rao

Muthyala Ilaiah , Nakka Ilaiah, Vs The State of A.P.

P.Hari Krishna, Vs State of A.P.

K.Subhash Chandra Bose, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mansani Krishna Kishore Vs The State of A.P.