Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 51 (MP)

Ravindra Chopade v. State of M. P.

2013-01-07

ANIL SHARMA

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the criminal complaint registered at criminal case No. 2851/2011 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 27.11.2012 the Food Inspector had collected a sample of “New Saffola Gold” blended vegetable oil from M/s. Ganapati Oil and Foods Ltd. Gwalior. The product was packed on 22.10.2010 and its expiry date was 22.4.2011. The sample was analyzed by the Public Analyst and was found to be adulterated and sanction for prosecution was accorded on 25.4.2011 i.e. after the expiry date of the product. Complaint was filed thereafter and the petitioner has challenged the complaint on the ground that he has been denied from his valuable right available under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the complaint has also been challenged on the ground that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner is In-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made liable by virtue of section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. On perusal of the complaint (Annexure-A) it is clear that the petitioner Ravindra has been implicated as accused No. 8 as Manager, MARICO Ltd., manufacturer of the product. In the complaint it is mentioned that seized New Saffola Gold blended vegetable oil was showing the date of packaging 22.10.2010 and it was also mentioned on the packet “best before 6 months from the date of packaging”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the oil from which sample was taken was best before 6 months from the date of packaging i.e. 22.4.2011 as the date of packaging was 22.10.2010. The complaint has been filed on 29.4.2011 i.e. after 7 days of expiry date of the product after filing of the complaint, copy of public analyst report has been sent to the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the complaint has been filed without delay after report of the public analyst is received after taking due sanction from the local health authority. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the complaint has been filed without delay after report of the public analyst is received after taking due sanction from the local health authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds in the petition but learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments towards the effect of non-compliance of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act mentioning that the petitioner has been deprived of exercising his valuable right as the period of product is expired before filing of the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of this Court in the matter of Prahlad Gattani and Ors. Vs. State of M.P., ILR (2012) MP 1454 in which it has been held that “sample of” “Tomato Ketchup” was found adulterated vide Public Analyst Report dated 23.3.2010. The declaration made on label of ketchup disclosed that the ketchup was ‘best before 6 months’ from January, 2010, the month of manufacture. Notice under section 13 (2) was sent to the petitioner only after filing of complaint before the Court on 29.7.2011 i.e. after a year from the date of expiry of shelf life of the sample. In such a situation, no order of conviction can be recorded on the basis of the report and proceedings are liable to be interfered with. Petition allowed.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgment of this Court in the matter ITC Ltd and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 (2) FAC 441, in which it has been infringement of valuable right under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by filing a complaint long after the date of expiry of samples thereby frustrating the right of the petitioner to go for a second testing, complaint liable to be quashed under section 482 of CrPC . 8. On the same point, other judgments of this Court in the matter of Mohd. Baitulla Vs. State of M.P., 2012 (I) MPJR 362 and M/s. Marico Ltd. Vs. Sate and V.N. Gangrade and another, 2012 (2) FAC 504, have also been cited. 9. 8. On the same point, other judgments of this Court in the matter of Mohd. Baitulla Vs. State of M.P., 2012 (I) MPJR 362 and M/s. Marico Ltd. Vs. Sate and V.N. Gangrade and another, 2012 (2) FAC 504, have also been cited. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Shri Rohit Mull and another vs. State of Goa, 2006 (1) FAC 57, in which it has been held that where samples of chocolates taken adulterated, notices under section 13 (2) of PFA Act sent to accused after expiry date of product or 2 days before date of expiry, right of petitioners-accused to get samples analysed from CFL frustrated, therefore, proceedings quashed by allowing petition.” 10. In the present case, complaint and panchnama prepared by Food Inspector shows that packet of oil from which sample was taken bears the date of packaging as 22.10.2010 and it was best before 6 months from the date of packaging and the complaint has been filed after 7 days delay from the expiry of shelf life of the product and notice under section 13(2) has been sent after filing of the complaint. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right to get the sample analysed before shelf life of the product. Therefore, considering the judgments cited above, the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial Court are liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, petition is allowed and the proceedings of criminal case No. 2851/2011 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior (M.P.) including the order of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7 (i) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner Ravindra Chopade only (accused No. 8 in the complaint) are hereby quashed and the petitioner is discharged from all the charges. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and its compliance.