Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 153 (TS)

Mr Noorullah Girani v. State of Telangana

2025-03-20

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.835 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.07.2016, on credible information received by the Sub Inspector of Police that accused was indulged in preparation and sale of adulterated Ginger Garlic paste and masala powders, at H.No.6-11/2, Darga Khaliz Khan, Kismathpur, Rajendranagar, which are unhygienic for human consumption and without any valid license from the competent authorities and thereby cheating innocent people. The Sub Inspector of Police by securing panchayathdars and staff conducted scene cum seizure panchanama and seized the adulterated products under cover of panchanama. Basing on it, a case in Cr.No.1490 of 2017 was registered by the Rajendranagar Police Station punishable for the offences under Section 420 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the PFAA’). 3. Heard Mr.Azim Parbatani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per specific procedure prescribed under Section 10 of the PFAA, the Food Inspector alone is authorized to take sample of food and send it to public analyst for analysis and as per specific procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the PFAA, the public analyst will give a report of the food sent to him for analysis and the 2 nd respondent bypassed the above said law and without jurisdiction took the complaint suo-moto and searched the place of business and seized the food without obtaining report from public analyst and investigated the case and filed charge sheet. There is no inducement by the petitioner at the inception or at later stage and none of the witnesses have explained as to who were cheated and as such, Section 420 of IPC does not apply. 5. There is no inducement by the petitioner at the inception or at later stage and none of the witnesses have explained as to who were cheated and as such, Section 420 of IPC does not apply. 5. It is further submitted that as per rule 8 (c) of the Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011, the food inspector must possess requisite qualifications as notified by the Central Government for the purpose along with three months satisfactory training in food inspection and sampling work under a Food Authority or in an institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government and the 2 nd respondent has no such expertise or proficiency as such search, seizure, investigation, sampling and prosecution. Further, the PFAA is repealed on 05.08.2011 and in lieu of 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, (for short ‘the FSSA’) which came into force on 23.08.2006, the petitioner/accused had been prosecuted in a repealed Act, which is grave illegality and violation of law. 6. In support of his contention he relied on a decision held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [2023 SCC Online SC 1678] , wherein it was held as under: 16. At this stage, we may refer to sub-section (4) of Section 97 of FSSA, a sunset clause. Sub-section (4) of Section 97 reads thus: “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed Act or orders after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the commencement of this Act.” 17. Sub-section (4) provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the PFA, cognizance of the offence committed under the PFA can be taken within three years from the date of commencement of the FSSA. The implication of sub-section (4) of Section 97 is that if an offence is committed under the PFA when the PFA was in force, cognizance of the crime can be taken only within three years from the date of commencement of the FSSA. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and prayed to grant liberty to the respondents to take action under the FSSA. 8. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and prayed to grant liberty to the respondents to take action under the FSSA. 8. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that in view of the Apex Court Judgment and as the PFFA has been repealed on 05.08.2011 and a complaint has been lodged on 20.07.2017 under PFFA. Further, the FSSA came into force on 23.08.2006 and as per section 97 (4) of the FSSA, no Court shall take cognizance under the repealed Act or Orders after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the commencement of this Act. In the present case, as per the sub-section 97(4) of the FSSA, 3 years period has lapsed from the date of complaint as per repealed Act of PFFA and the present offence is lodged in the year 2017, where the authorities ought to have registered a case under section pertaining to present FSSA, as the offence registered is under repealed Act, the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.835 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.835 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.