Quashed

Potti Bala Venkata Subba Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jun 2014CRLP/1494/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings. It held that water is excluded from the definition of 'food' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Consequently, no licence is required, and the prosecution constitutes an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings C.C.No.407 of 2011 in Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Markapuram are quashed against the petitioner.

Potti Bala Venkata Subba Rao, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

Crl.P.No.1494 of 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.407 of 2011 on the file of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Markapuram, Prakasam District, for the offences under Section 7(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 49(28) and 50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, against the petitioner.

¶5

2. Heard both sides.

¶6

3. Advocate for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who was a President of M/s. Sandhya Welfare Society, established a mineral water plant for the benefit of people of Yerragondapalem Village and surrounding areas and a nominal amount of Rs.3/-per 20 litres is being collected from the public for maintenance of the unit and there is no sale or package of drinking water. She submitted that even in the panchanama, no packing material is found and therefore, there is no requirement of BIS Certificate or licence. She submitted that that ‘water’ does not fall under the definition of ‘food’ as per Section 2(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). She further submitted that no licence is required under Rule 50 Clause (1) of the Rules made there under as the ‘water’ is not a food. She also submitted that Food Inspector without noticing all these aspects filed the

¶7

charge sheet against the petitioner and no prima facie offence is made out against him, thus, she prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶8

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the charge sheet and the panchanama, petitioner was found selling water and therefore, the charge sheet is filed against him.

¶9

5. I have perused the material papers. From the material, it is clear that a mineral water plant was established in the village with the help of M/s. Sandhya Welfare Society and the villagers have to collect water from the plant and no package material is found even according to the panchanama. As seen from the definition of ‘food” given under Section 2 Clause (v) of the Act, drugs and water are excluded. According to Rule 50 sub-Clause (1), there is a prohibition to manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any article of food without licence. Since water is not a ‘food’ as per the definition of the Act, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no licence is required. When the ‘water’ does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Act, prosecuting the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of the Act is nothing but an abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder are liable to be quashed.

¶10

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed

¶11

and the proceedings in C.C.No.407 of 2011 on the file of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Markapuram, Prakasam District, are quashed against the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶12

S. RAVI KUMAR, J

¶13

20^th June, 2014 sj

Potti Bala Venkata Subba Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potti Bala Venkata Subba Rao, 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

M/s. D.R.S. Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Vs Swal Corporation Ltd.

R.Jagdish Vs The State of Ap.

Subhash Agarwal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chatta Thirupataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Logic Bytes Pvt., Ltd., registered office at Vs The State of a.P., rep. by P.P.

Chedella Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Ap., Rep.byits Food Inspecto, O/o The