Allowed

S.Prahlad, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Apr 2013CRLP/13277/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against milk vendors. The Court held that failure to disclose the source of supply violated statutory requirements. Additionally, the delay in filing the complaint deprived petitioners of their right to reanalysis, warranting quashing.

What did the court decide?

The complaint and proceedings in C.C.No.294 of 2010 against the petitioners were quashed.

S.Prahlad, Vs The State of A.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.13277 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

A complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the petitioner and others for violation of Section 7 (i) and 2 (i) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’) which is punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act. The said case was taken on file as C.C.No.294 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. This petition is filed by the petitioners who are A2 To A4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said proceedings.

¶4

2. The third petitioner herein is M/s.The Kolar Chickbullapur District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited, of which the petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the nominees. On 31-032009 at about 2.00 p.m. the Food Inspector visited the business premises of A1 situated at D.No.3/12, Main Road, Mamillapally village, Kanaganipalli mandal, Ananthapur district and found A1 transacting the business. The Food Inspector introduced himself, the purpose of visit and also called mediators. On suspicion, he purchased three 500 ml., sealed pockets of milk labeled as Nandini Good Life Pure Cow’s Milk Tetra Pack, Processes, Packed at Kolar District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited, Huttur, Kolar, date of manufacture on 25-02-2009 and it is best before 90 days from manufacture date. The Food Inspector paid Rs.42/- towards the cost of three pockets and obtained receipt. Then and there the Food Inspector issued Form VI notice to A1 intimating him that the above purchased sample will be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis purpose. Then he divided the three pockets into three parts of the samples in its

¶5

original condition, kept them in a clean, dry and empty plastic container capped tightly tied with twin and sealed them. The signature of the vendor is obtained in such a manner that the part of his signature carried on to both paper slip and wrapper. On enquiry, A1 did not disclose the source of supply. On 01-04-2009, one part of the sealed sample was sent by Express Parcel Post to the Public Analyst along with form No.VII memorandum. The remaining two parts of the samples along with two copies of form No.VII memoranda are handed over to the Gazetted Food Inspector and Local (Health) Authority for safe custody. After causing the analysis of the sample the Public Analyst delivered his report on 18-05-2009 along with covering letter dated 20-05-2009 to the Local (Health) Authority, which was forwarded to the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst in his report opined that the sample does not conform to the standard of Milk Fat, Yeast and Mold Count and as such it is adulterated. Basing on these allegations a private complaint was filed on 20-03-2010. Thereafter notice under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the shelf-life of the product is only for three months and product was deposited in the court nearly ten months later, as such the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right in sending the same to the Central Food Laboratory for re-analysis. He further contends that the allegations were made against the petitioners only on the basis of lable declaration, which is contrary to Section 14-A of the Act. Hence, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶6

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that

¶7

a reading of the complaint would prima facie disclose the offence alleged against the petitioners, and as such, the proceeding cannot quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C..

¶8

5. Section 14-A of the Act reads as under:

¶9

“Vendor to disclose the name, etc. of the person from whom the article of food was purchased: Every vendor of an article of food shall, if so required, disclose to the food inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food.”

¶10

A reading of the said provision shows that every vendor of an article of food shall disclose to the Food Inspector the name and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food. In ‘Mathew Xavior and another vs. State of A.P.,^[1] ’ , this Court held that ‘the name of the manufacturer, supplier, marketing agency found on the label cannot form the basis for prosecuting the accused and taking into consideration that there is nothing on record other than the label connecting concerned petitioners with the product, the proceedings were quashed’. Similar view was reiterated in ‘T.Srihari Ltd. and others Vs. State of A.P.,^[2] ’ .

¶11

In the instance case when the Food Inspector asked the vendor about the source of supply he did not produce any bill evidencing the purchase of said products. Therefore, in view of the above judgment since the source of supply is not disclosed as required under Section 14-A of the Act the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

¶12

6. Further the sample was lifted on 31-03-2009, it was sent for public analysis on 01-04-2009 and the report was received by the

¶13

Food Inspector on 20-05-2009. In spite of receipt of report in the month of May, 2009 the Food Inspector filed the complaint on 2003-2010 and thereafter notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners.

¶14

7. A perusal of the complaint would clearly disclose that the shelf-life of the product is only for a period of three months from the date of manufacture i.e., 25-02-2009. Though the sample was tested on 31-03-2009, the complaint was filed on 20-03-2010. Therefore, the petitioners are deprived of their valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act in sending the sample for re-analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. This court in Naresh Kumar Kedia v. Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and others^[3] , Konda Suryanarayana and others v. State of A.P., Vinod Namviar^[4] , Regional Sales Manager (Foods) and others v. State of A.P., rep. by Food Inspector^[5] and Neghraj v. the State (Delhi Administration) and another^[6] held that there is no justification for launching the prosecution with an abnormal delay of two years after lifting the sample.

¶15

In view of the above decisions, it is clear that the petitioners are deprived of their right to send the second sample for reanalysis. Either way, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed

¶16

8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.294 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur district against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶17

9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶19

April 17, 2013 PN

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13277 of 2010

¶22

April 17, 2013