Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 717 (AP)

G. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY v. State Of A. P.

2002-06-13

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2002
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS, who are accused in CC No. 408 of 2000 on the file of the court of Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Hyderabad, East and North at kothapet, Ranga Reddy District, invoke the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the proceedings in CC No. 408 of 2000. ( 2 ) FIRST petitioner is the Managing Partner of the second petitioner s Firm, which is transacting Ooty Acqua Cool Minerals meant for sale for public for human consumption. The Food Inspector of warangal District took three bottles of 3 x 1 litres of Ooty Acqua Coll Minerals Pure n" Safe Mineral Water from the stock and sent them to public analyst. A notice dated 16-3-2000 was received by the petitioners on 20-3-2000 issued under Section 13 (2) of prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 informing the filing of complaint before the additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, hyderabad East and North, Kothapeta, Ranga reddy District. A copy of the analyst report dated 27-4-1999 was also forwarded to the petitioners. Thereafter, it appears that a complaint was filed on 15-3-2000, which was registered as CC No. 408 of 2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners presented this application to quash the said proceedings. ( 3 ) THE contentions of the petitioners Counsel are of twofold in nature. Firstly he contends that water cannot come under the definition of "food" under the provisions of prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Food Inspector has no jurisdiction to take sample of water and file the complaint. The second contention is that the petitioners were not served with the analyst report within the time stipulated and they have lost the right to send it to the central Laboratory and such prejudice is caused to them for not following the mandatory provisions under Sections 11 (4) and 13 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. The second contention is that the petitioners were not served with the analyst report within the time stipulated and they have lost the right to send it to the central Laboratory and such prejudice is caused to them for not following the mandatory provisions under Sections 11 (4) and 13 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. ( 4 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions, Section 2, sub-clause (c) of clause (v) of prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines "food", which is as follows: (v) "food" means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water, and includes: (a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or used in the composition or preparation of human food; (b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and (c) any other article which the Central government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare by notification in the Official Gazette as food for the purposes of this Act. " it is clearly mentioned that the drugs and water do not constitute food. Water is specifically mentioned stating that it is not an article constituting food on the date of the incident. There is much force in the contention of the learned Counsel Sri g. Chandra Shekhar Reddy that water does not fall within the definition of food and the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 has no application since the adulteration found is not in respect of food. Even otherwise, the Food Inspector did not follow the procedure mentioned under sections 11 (4) and 13 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor draws my attention that package of drinking water has been brought under the purview of the definition of food under sub-clause (c) of clause (v) of Section 2 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with effect from 21-3-2001. Obviously it has no retrospective operation and the standards of drinking water or package water has not been prescribed though it is included in the definition. In the absence of prescribing standard water, the adulteration cannot be judged. As the amendment has no retrospective operation, it is of least significance. Obviously it has no retrospective operation and the standards of drinking water or package water has not been prescribed though it is included in the definition. In the absence of prescribing standard water, the adulteration cannot be judged. As the amendment has no retrospective operation, it is of least significance. Therefore, the complaint lodged by the Food Inspector is liable to be quashed as no offence is made out under the provisions of Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 and the Food inspector has no jurisdiction to take sample and send it to the analyst prior to 21 -3-2001. ( 6 ) IN the result, the proceedings in CC No. 408 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, hyderabad East and North at Kothapeta, ranga Reddy District are quashed. Accordingly the petition is allowed. Mark a copy of this judgment to the Director of medical and Health Services, Government of A. P.