Allowed

Sirisetti Durga Bhavani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jan 2017CRLP/12990/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for food adulteration offences, holding that the samples were lifted after the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was repealed and replaced by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, leaving no legal basis for the case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in CC.No.346 of 2011 are quashed, and any miscellaneous petitions pending are to stand closed.

Sirisetti Durga Bhavani, Vs The State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12990 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC.), is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in CC.No.346 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthy, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(j) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (“the Act” for brevity) read with Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, on the sole ground that a complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Repealed Act since the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was repealed on 29.07.2010.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 brought to the notice of this Court the notification issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 29.07.2010 in S.O.1855(E) by which the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006) came into force on account of notification repealing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

¶6

Admittedly, the sample was lifted on 25.02.2011 at 5.30 pm as per the allegations made in paragraph No.4 of the complaint. By that date, the Act was in not in force and thereby, the Food Inspector is incompetent to exercise his power under the Act to lift the sample. In view of repealing of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, lifting the sample by the Food Inspector is an illegality and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioneraccused No.1 shall not be continued, as there exist no prima facie

¶7

¶8

ground to proceed against her for the alleged offences under the provisions of the repealed Act.

¶9

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 alone in CC.No.346 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthy, East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(j) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, are quashed by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶10

stand closed.

¶11

___________________________________
(M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J)
20 th January 2017
RRB

Sirisetti Durga Bhavani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirisetti Durga Bhavani, 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

Shri Jinnuri Dorainaidu Vs The State of A.P.

Thadepalli Prem Kumar , Prem Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinimilli Anil Kumar, Vs The State of A.P.

Sri.Sangram Vs M/s Kapil Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.

Peddi Murali Vs The State of A.P

Gudivada Rama Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh