Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 924 (BOM)

M. Y. Jagadesh v. State of A. P.

2006-06-21

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2006
JUDGMENT :- This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the accused in S.T.C. No.12 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, Anantapur District. The petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 16(1)(2), 7(1) and 2(12)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The Food Inspector seized the sealed ghee packets weighing 200 grams each from the firm of the accused and after analysis, the ghee was found adulterated, therefore, the accused who are the partners of a super bazaar were prosecuted for the offences mentioned above. In the complaint, there is a mention that the Food Inspector purchased three ghee packets containing 200 grams each described on the label as Mathura Ghee. During the taking of the samples, the first petitioner informed the Food Inspector that Mathura Ghee 200 Grams packets were purchased from M/s. Anuradha Enterprises, Hindupur and produced the Xerox copy of the bill covered by Ex.4. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the ghee was contained in a sealed packet prepared by Madhura Dairy Limited, Vijayawada and distributed by Madhura Enterprises, the accused did not know the contents of the food article under the bona fide impression that he purchased the packets for sale, therefore, they are not liable to be prosecuted for the said offences. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in P. Unnikrishnan Vs. Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality, AIR 1995 SC 1983 , wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the offence under the Act, observed that the accused sold food article in sealed tins purchased from the representative of a firm with a bill having warranty and the firm is located at a distance of 200 KMs away from the shop of the accused, therefore, no knowledge about nonexistence of the firm could be attributed to accused. The accused sold the food article in the same manner and condition in which it was purchased by him. The accused in turn sold the article in the same manner to the Food Inspector. therefore, the accused is entitled for discharge. 4. In M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram Vs. The accused sold the food article in the same manner and condition in which it was purchased by him. The accused in turn sold the article in the same manner to the Food Inspector. therefore, the accused is entitled for discharge. 4. In M/s. Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram Vs. State of Punjab, 2001(2) FAC 306, the Punjab High Court observed that the Food Inspector took a sample from the shop of the accused and sent it to the public analyst and found that it was misbranded. At the time when the Food Inspector has taken the sample, the accused petitioner had informed the Food Inspector that he had purchased the packet of Iodine Salt from the manufacturer under a bill and handed over the copy of the bill to the Food Inspector and this fact was incorporated in the seizure panchanama. It was further held that the criminal complaint and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon would be an abuse of process of the Court, inasmuch as it could not be said that the accused petitioner has committed any offence, as he was saved under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 12-A and Rule 14. Section 19(2) of the Act provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he had purchased article of food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a warranty in the prescribed form and the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he had sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Rule 12-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, provides that every manufacturer, distributor or dealer selling an article of food to a vendor shall give either separately or in the bill, cash memo or label, a warranty. The Punjab High Court, while following the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Unnikrishnan's case (supra), held that the accused is not liable for prosecution. 5. In Amar Chand and others Vs. The Punjab High Court, while following the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Unnikrishnan's case (supra), held that the accused is not liable for prosecution. 5. In Amar Chand and others Vs. State of Punjab, 1984(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 167, it was held, by placing reliance on Section 14 of the Act, that a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of sale of any article of food given by manufacturer or distributor or dealer to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be warranty given by such manufacturer, dealer or distributor. The accused placed reliance on the Photostat copy issued by the manufacturer which indicated that packets containing chilli powder were sold to the accused petitioner. It was held that the accused petitioner had purchased chilli powder under legal and valid warranty. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Courts, the accused, who have produced the bill to show that he purchased the food article from the manufacturer or distributor and he sold it in the same form without manipulating the packets supplied to him, are not liable to be prosecuted by virtue of Section 19(2) of the Act. As the accused are protected under Section 19(2) of the Act, they are not liable to be prosecuted. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioners is quashed. Petition allowed.