Allowed

M/S Charminar Bottling Co.Pvt.Ltd., v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024CRLRC/1430/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision, setting aside the conviction for manufacturing adulterated carbonated water. The court held that intimation of the food test report after a delay exceeding the six-month shelf life denied the petitioner's statutory right to refer the sample to the Central Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of the revision petitioner.

M/S Charminar Bottling Co.Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1430 OF 2010

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and^{401 of CrPC against} the Judgment dated 05-08-2010 made in Crl.A.No. 93 of 2007, on^{the file of the} court of Principal Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda,^{preferred against} the^Order passed CC"No. 319 of 2002 dated 16-7-2007 on the file of the Court of the Special lrr'lobile Court, Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

MlS.Charminar Bottling Co.PW.LTD, Pothyereddipally, Sangareddy,^Medak District, rep. by G. Raghuram Sharma, S/o Seetharam^Sharma,R/o. Pothireddypalli, Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

¶10

.,.Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

State of AP Rep By through The Gazetted Food lnspector,^Nalgonda.PP Hyd, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ,Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Naveen Kumar

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶16

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISTO N CASE No. 143O OF 2O1O

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The revision petitioner/A2 was convicted for the offence under Section 7(i) and punishable under Section i6(i) (a) (i) of A.P.Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶21

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector who was examined as PW. 1 conducted inspection and inspected the premises of A1 on 2l.O5.2OOI. tn the said premises carbonated water namely 'Pepsi' was found in bottles with capacity of 300 m1.. The said bottles were stocked for the purpose of selling. PW. 1 then purchased some bottles and two bottles were sealed for the purpose of analysis. On the bottles it was mentioned that the liquid does not contain any added flavour and best before six months from the date of manufacture. Further, it was also mentioned as 'sweetened carbonated water,. The bottles were collected from A1 outlet 'Star Footwear'. The said samples were sent for the purpose of analysis. On 23.06.2001, report was sent to PW. 1 stating th,at the test revealed that they do not conform of the standards of pH level that was required to be met.

¶22

¶23

Since the said bottles were malufactured by A2 company, sanction was sought which was given by the concerned authority on 25.07.2OO2 for prosecuting the accused. Thereafter, on 05.11.2OO2, the analysis report was sent to the accused. ThereaJter, complaint was filed.

¶24

The trial Court held that the accused_company was responsible for manufacturing adulterated carbonated water, since it did not conform to the pH level standards that were prescribed.

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.prakash Reddy, appearing on behalf of the accused would submit that the right to get the sample tested was denied by the Food Inspector. In fact, the bottles were seized on 2|.OS.2OO 1 , whereas the report regarding non-conformity of pH level was sent to the company on O5.LL.2OO2 which is nearly after 1 year 4 months after the FSL had given report. In the said circumstances, when the shelf life of the produce was specifically mentioned as six months, the right to get the sample tested with the Central Lab was denied. For the reason of denial of the right of the sample being re-tested the con'riction has to be reversed. Sanction order for prosecution was obtained from the concerned State Food Authority on 2S.OZ.2OO2

t I

, t

arid notice under Section l3(2) of the Prevention^ofFood Adulteration Act, 1954, was issued on 05.ll.2OO2.

¶30

The learned Senior Counsel reiied^{on thefollowing} Judgments;

¶31

i) Ahmed Dadabhai Adaani o, Sto:te oJ^{Maharashtra(7991)} Supp (2) Scc 652.

¶32

ii) State of Andhra Pradesh a. Kotal iagadesh^&others, frrANU/TL/1639/2022.

¶33

iii) Obulasettg Bala Venkatesutqrd Roo a.^{The State of A.P.} MANU/TL/1783/2022

¶34

ia) State of Andhra Pradesh a. Talluri Ramamohana^Rao 2027 SiCC OtrLine TS 3703

¶35

o) Food Inspector, Hgderabad u. Talluri Ro'mamoha,na^Rao (2011) SCC OnLine AP 575

¶36

ui) M/*Matha Venkatesuara Roo & others^{o. Sto:teof Andhra}

¶37

Pradesh (2022) SCC Online AP 1772

¶38

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted^that orders may be passed on merits.

¶39

¶40

It is not disputed that the seizure^{and sampling of t6e} bottles was done on 21.05.2001. Imrnediately, the next^{day it was} sent for the purpose of analysis. Admittedly, neither^{PW. 1 nor}

I I t

PW.2 has intimated the accused regarding the public analysis report reflecting non-conformity of pH levels prior to 05. 11.2002. The shelf lile of the samples is of 6 months and the accused was informed about the report after 1 year 4 months. The right to get the sample tested in accordarce with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the Central Lab was denied on account of giving notice intimating about FSL report beyond shelf life of the product. In the said circumstances, conviction has to be set aside.

¶45

9 . Accordingly, the revision petitioner succeeds and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the Judgment of 1n learned Sessions Judge Cr1.A.No.93/2OO7 confirming the Judgment of trial Court in CC.No.319/2002. Revision petitioner/A'2 is acquitted.

¶46

Sd/. B.^SATYAV HI DEPUTY^REGIST AR

¶47

//TRUE^COPY//

¶48

SECTION^OFFICER

¶49

To, 1. The^{Principal SessionsJudge'at Nalgonda. - - . .} dr"tt"sfecial-Mobrle^{court'Nalgonda} 2\ The^{Judicial Magistrate} "iii"t 6 \o""" Cc i"^{sii-ri.x"""n Kumar' Advocate [oPUCl} 4 Two^{CD CoPies} 5. Two CCs^{to Public Prosecutor'High Court for the Stateof Telangana'} Hyderabad. Svs/gh

l.v

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 210912024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1430 of 2010

¶56