Allowed

Parle Agro v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept. Hyd., and Another

Telangana HC4 Sept 2024WP/27482/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a food company where the Food Inspector analyzed a sample after the product's shelf life expired, violating mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regarding time limits for initiating action.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Case C.C. No. 2 of 2011 against the petitioner was quashed and all pending miscellaneous petitions in the matter were closed.

Parle Agro Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶7

WRIT PETI TION NO:^27482OF2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd,^{Plot N9} Q8-t9 Q3, ffase-lll,^{lndustrialPark,} Fiinaryiirari, Patancheru^{(M), MedakDistrict, (NowSangareddyDistrict),} Telangana Represented by iti^{[t/anager Legal and Authorized Representative} Mr. Sitya Prakash, S/o Laie^{Sri D.K Upadhyay}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND ' -'-i. Strt" of Telangana (the then A.P.) Rep by Principal Secretary, Home Dept' Secretariat Hyderabad 2. Food lnspector, Div-ll,^{Nizamabad District' Telangana}

¶12

...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order^{or Direction,more particularlyin the} nature of a wRlT oF CERTIORARI^{quashingthe c.c. No.2 of 2011 on the file} of Honble Judicial Magistrate^{of Firstclass at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District,} Telangana (then AP State;^{as being arbitrary, illegal, contraryto the principles of} natural^justice and u^nco nstitutiona^l.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2017^{(WPMP.NO:34 't420F20171}

¶15

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto} lrant^{stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitionerin} 6.C. tto.'Z of 2O11 on^{the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Classat} Kamareddy, Nizamabad^{District, Telangana(then AP State)pendingdisposal of} the Writ Petition.

¶16

COUNSEI fOr thE^{PEtitiONETS:SRI VIKRAM POOSARLA REPRESENTING FOR} SRI MALIPEDDI^ABHINAYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI ANIKETHREDDY, ASST'GPFOR HOME} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: GP FORCIVIL SUPPLIES}

¶17

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶18

rl J]

¶19

¶20

HON'BLESRI JUSTTCE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO .274a2 0F 2017

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows:

¶24

"..../o rssue an appropiate wit, or order or direction more particularlg in the nature of a Writ of Certtorari, quashing the C.C.No.2 of 2O1 1 on the fite of the learned Jttd.icial Magistrate o/ Firsf Class at Kamareddy, Nizamabad_ Distict and pass such other ord.er or orders..

¶25

Heard Mr.Vikram poosarla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.I_State. perused the material available on record.

¶26

It is the case of petitioner that, respondent No.2 lifted one of the products of the petitioner company i.e., Frooti Mango Drink 2OO ml Tetra pack, Lot No.EOS2C EpO i9987_R manufactured on Og.O5.2010. The said sample has been sent to analysis on 2O.O5.2O10 and it has been analysed by the expert vide its report dated OI.OT.2O|O. The expert opinecl that the said sample does not confirm to the standards of the total plate count and therefore, it is adulterated.

¶27

I I // l Ill i

¶28

¶29

Basing on the report a case has been filed on 23.12.2010 and the sarne is numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy which is questioned for continuation of the proceedings by the petitioner on the ground that the said sample has been analysed after expiry of its stipulated period. The lifted sample i.e., shelf life is six (6) months. The test was conducted on O1.07.2O10. The prosecution initiated proceedings against the petitioner on 23.12.2010 i.e., after (46) days after expiry of shelf life of the lifted product and half a month after self analysis report.

¶30

The petitioner herein received the notice dated 08.01.2010 i.e., after (60) days of shelf life product. The Central Food Laboratory has given its report on 15.06.2011 i.e., after (22O) days after the shelf life of product and almost (7) months after the State Food Laboratory analysis report.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory provisions as envisaged under Section l3(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act). Moreover, the complaint was filed (2) two months after expiry of shelf life product.

¶32

¶33

I I

¶34

On 14.06.2024 this Court granted interim stay until further orders. In spite of that the respondent(s) have not taken any steps r-o vacate the interim stay granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision between Marico Lts. & Ors. us State of Delhi & Anr.l wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that Food Adulteration Authority are duty bound to ensure that the valuable right conferred by Section i3(2) ol the Act is not defeated due to inefficiencv and ineptitude.

¶36

In the present case, the report of the analyst is the expiry of shelf period of the product as such it is not maintainable. In view thereof the complaint filed by the respondent(s) is quashed there under.

¶37

It is settled law that the Food Inspector in food adulteration case has to follow the mandatory provisions under the Food Adulteration Act in accordance to the rules and regulations mentioned therein. In the present case, the Food Inspector has clearly violated the terms and conditions without

¶38

I 2015 SCC Online Del 7162

¶39

{.:tj ',rl

¶40

¶41

following due process of law, filed the present calendar case vide C.C.No.2 of 2Ol1 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy against the petitioner herein since the shelf life period of the product had expired even before initiation of the proceedings. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are required to be quashed.

¶42

I I . In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and^the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2 of 2Ol1 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy are hereby quashed.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Criminal

¶44

Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶45

SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .t^-. / 0/ SECT]ON OFF]CER 1. The Principal Secretarv. Home Dept. State of Telangana (the then A.p.) Secretariat Hvderabad2. Food_lnspect6r, Div-ll, Nizamabad District, Telanoana 9. 9n"^{CC to SRt MAL|pEDD.t ABuiruAi} nE'ooi'XJro"rt" topuc] 1. I*o^{CCs to Gp FORHOME, High} Coud fo; th€; Siai s. gwo ca; i; 6b Fdii iivrL supplrEs, Hish court,Si,tnlt?LTir,^tour Telangana. [OUTI 6. Two CD Copies BN GJP

To,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410912024

ORDER

-- lg Sl'4r(r
o <?^
q
.) n-(
(
( 0.9 0Etj zeiq
e
\ 4*
- .\ ( .- l. /, r,' pEi

¶52

WP.No.27482 of 2017

¶53

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS GIdo b-{r,W

Parle Agro v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept. Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parle Agro v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept. Hyd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghulam Mohammed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mumai Ramesh, Vs Sri N. Sudershan Rao and 4 Ors.

Gopalakishan Agarwal, Hyd Vs Md. Aslam, Secbad and 2 Othrs

Saggem RajaMani Vs Bude Swamy

Damerla Praveen Vs Dasari David and another

Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan Vs The State of Telangana.