IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.7909 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1.Muthian 2.K.R.Ravichandran ...Petitioners -Vs- State represented by The Food Inspector Food & Drug Administration Pondicherry ...Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to C.C.No.304 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Pondicherry and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Bharathi Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) ***** O R D E R
The petitioners seek to quash the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.304 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Pondicherry for alleged offences under Section 7(1) r/w Section 2 (1-a) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and punishable under section 16 (1-a) (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2.The Food Inspector, appointed by the Government of Pondicherry under Section 9 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, inspected the premises of the 1st accused on 25.11.2005 at about 4.30 p.m. and found that the 1st accused was conducting the sale of ‘Yen Top Vanasapathy’ in sealed packets along with other grocery food articles on retail basis. The complainant took samples from the packets in six separate sealed plastic packets each weighing 200 ml. They were repacked in three lots. The complainant issued a copy of Form-6 and paid the cost of samples to the 1st accused and obtained a receipt from him. One lot was sent to the Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Pondicherry on 26.11.2005 for the purpose of analysis and the remaining two lots along with sample particulars were submitted to the Local (Health) Authority, Pondicherry for safe custody of the sample on such date. The report of the Public Analyst, Pondicherry was obtained on 13.12.2005 and the same informed as follows:
” “the sample of Yen Top Vanaspathi contains 0.4% Free Fatty Acids as Oleic acid which is more than the permissible limit of 0.25% Free Fatty Acid as Oleic acid laid down under clause A.19 in apendix B to PFA Rules 1955. Hence the sample is declared as adulterated”. Therefore, the above sample of Yen Top Vanaspathi is declared adulterated in accordance with section 7(1) read with section 2 (1a) (a) & (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and punishable under section 16 (1-a) (i) of the said Act and Rules made thereunder.”
3.Thus, on the allegation that the sample was declared adulterated in accordance with section 7(1) read with section 2 (1a) (a) & (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and punishable under section 16 (1-a) (i) of the said Act, the complaint came to be filed before the lower Court on 13.04.2006.
4.Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the sample was seized from the 1st accused on 25.11.2005 and Form-6 was issued to him. Form-6 is the notice of intimation to take sample, which is to be issued in writing by the Food Inspector to the person from whom he takes the sample and simultaneously, by appropriate means, also to the persons if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act in keeping with Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955. Section 14-A required the vendor of an article of food to disclose to the Food Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food, if the Inspector required him to do so. In the instant case, the inspector had not sought such compliance. Further, in the complaint, the 2nd accused merely stands included, but the complaint does not disclose how and why he stands so included. In any event, in the instant case, the report of the analyst was received by the complainant on 13.12.2005, and the complaint has been filed before the lower Court on 13.04.2006. Section 13(2) of the Act reserves a very valuable right to the accused, whereunder, the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken and the person, if any, covered under Section 14-A of the Act would be furnished a copy of the analysis report and informed that, if so desired, either or both of them could make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.
5.The learned Senior counsel informs that the very label on the food packet discloses that the shelf-life of the sample is only for a period of six months. The shelf-life had expired, as on the date of filing of the complaint on 13.04.2006. The notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act had been issued to the accused on 03.05.2006 after the filing of the complaint and much after the receipt of the analyst report by the complainant. By the time of receipt of such notice, the shelf-life of the food had expired and in any event, the quality of sample would have deteriorated and become unfit for analysis. The learned Senior counsel places reliance on the decisions of this Court in C.Suresh and others v. The State 2005 (1) CTC 645 and M.Chinnachamy and 3 others v. R.Satyanarayanan 2001 (4) CTC 274.
6.I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submissions of Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
7.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the submission that the non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act, has deprived the accused of a valuable right of having the samples held by the Public Health Laboratory, Pondicherry, tested towards proving their innocence has been lost, has to be accepted. Following the earlier decisions of this Court which had been relied upon by the learned Senior counsel, this Court would quash the proceedings.
8.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition shall stand allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.304 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Pondicherry shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
gm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate I, Pondicherry
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras