{"id":5694,"date":"2010-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-27T16:14:29","modified_gmt":"2018-03-27T10:44:29","slug":"a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/08\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nCriminal Original Petition(MD) No.7988 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2010\n\n\n1.A.Eswaramoorthy\n2.TPSH.Partheeban Ram Sait,\n3.P.Prasanthi\n4.J.D.I.Rajasekar\n5.Margin Free Market Pvt. Ltd.,\n  Rep. by TPSH.Partheeban Ram Sait\n  93, Tiruchendur Road,\n  Palayamkottai.\t\t\t.. Petitioners\n\n(R5 is impleaded vide order\ndated 02.08.2010 made in\nM.P.No.3 of 2010)\n\nvs\n\nThe Food Inspector,\nTirunelveli Municipal Corporation,\nTirunelveli,\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call\nfor the records in connection with S.T.C.No.6 of 2009, on the file of the\nlearned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and to quash the same.\n\n!For petitioners ... Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan\n^For Respondent\t ... Mr.R.M.Anbunithi\n\t\t     G.A., (Crl. Side)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioners approach this Court with a prayer to call for the records
\nin connection with S.T.C.No.6 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate No.1, Tirunelveli and to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The case of the petitioners is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe petitioners 2 to 4 are running a Departmental Store in the name
\nand style of ‘Margin Free Market’ and the 1st petitioner is the Working Manager.
\nOn 27.08.2007, the said store was inspected by the respondent and he had taken
\nthe sample of ‘Mysore Doll Pocket’ and sent the same to the Public Analyst on
\n31.08.2007 and he has received a report from the Public Analyst on 28.09.2007
\nstating that the sample is misbranded as it is not labelled in accordance with
\nthe requirements of Rule 32(a) (e) and (f) of the P.F.A. Rules 1955 and hence,
\nthe complainant registered a case against the petitioners for the offence
\npunishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with 7(ii) and 2(ix) (k) P.F.A. Act
\n1955 and Rule 32(1)(e) and (f) P.F.A Rules 1955 and the complaint was taken on
\nfile in S.T.C.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,
\nTirunelveli.  Hence, the petitioners approached this Court to quash the
\ncomplaint filed against them.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
\ncomplaint has been filed on 27.08.2009,  but, 13(2) notice has been issued only
\non 31.12.2009 and hence, the petitioner’s choice for sending the sample to the
\nPublic Analyst has been curtailed; moreover, there is no evidence to show that
\nhow and in what manner, the sample is misbranded; the complaint suffers from
\nprocedural illegality, because it has been filed after a lapse of 2 years from
\nthe date of receipt of Public analyst’s report and thus he prayed for quashing
\nthe complaint in S.T.C.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.  To substantiate his case, he lied upon the
\nfollowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t1. (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 270 (Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah Vs.
\nC.C.Jani and another)\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 843 (Bhushan Prasad, Manager-Quality and Regulatory
\nOperations of the general Mills India Private Ltd., Mumbai and Another Vs.
\nK.Ravichander)\n<\/p>\n
\t3.(2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 779 (Baskar Vembu, Indian Inhabitant, Nominee of
\nCadbury India Ltd., Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 and Another Vs. State of Tamil
\nNadu at the instance of K.Jebaraja Shobana Kumar, Food Inspector, Food & Drugs,
\nAdministration, Tamil Nadu)<\/p>\n
\t4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and perused the
\nmaterials available on records.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Admittedly, the sample taken by the complainant is on 27.08.2007 and the
\nsame was sent to Public Analyst on 31.08.2007 and the analyst report has been
\nreceived on 28.09.2007.  But the complaint has been filed on27.08.2009 and
\nthereafter only, 13(2) notice has been issued on 31.12.2009 after two years from
\nthe analysis report received by the complainant stating that if it is so
\ndesired, they may make an application to the court within a period of ten days
\nfrom the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the
\narticle of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central
\nFood Laboratory.  But, here, in the case on hand, the notice has been issued
\nafter 2 years from the date of receipt of notice and hence, the petitioner’s
\nchoice to send another portion of the product to the Public Analyst is
\ncurtailed.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.In such circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the decisions
\nrelied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In (2010) 2
\nSupreme Court Cases (Cri) 270 (Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah Vs. C.C.Jani and
\nanother), wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7.Sections 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
\n1954, read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Report of Public Analyst. – (1) The Public Analyst shall deliver, in
\nsuch form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (health) Authority of the
\nresult of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis.
\n\t(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-
\nsection (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local
\n(Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the
\nperson from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if
\nany, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section
\n14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the
\nresult of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing
\nsuch person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make
\nan application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt
\nof the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the
\nLocal (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.It will be apparent from the above, that only on receipt of the report
\nof the Public Analyst under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of
\nfood is adulterated, can a prosecution be launched and a copy of the report
\ncould be supplied to the accused, Sub-section (2) also indicates that on receipt
\nof the report the accused could, if he so desired, make an application to the
\nCourt within a period of ten days from the date of the receipt of the copy of
\nthe report to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local (Health)
\nAuthority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In other words, in the instant case, the appellant was prevented from
\napplying for analysis of the second sample before 17.07.1989, by which time the
\nsecond sample of curd had deteriorated and was not capable of being analysed as
\nwas found in Ghisa Ram referred to above.”\n<\/p>\n
In (2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 843 (Bhushan Prasad, Manager-Quality and Regulatory
\nOperations of the general Mills India Private Ltd., Mumbai and Another Vs.
\nK.Ravichander), this Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The reading of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
\n1954 makes it clear that on receipt of the Analyst report, the Local Health
\nAuthority shall after the institution of prosecution forward the copy of the
\nanalyst report to the accused concerned and to inform such persons that they may
\nmake an application before the Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of
\nthe copy of the report to get the other portion of the sample of article to be
\nanalysed by Central Food Laboratory.  But in the instant case, it is seen that
\nthe date of manufacture of the sample is 15.10.2003, the date of expiry of the
\narticle is dated 15.02.2004, the Food Inspector obtained sanction for
\nprosecution on 12.11.2004 and the complaint was filed only on 10.12.2004 and as
\nsuch the complaint itself was filed after the expiry of the product, viz.,
\nsample as early as on 15.02.2004 and as such the sample has become unfit for
\nfurther analysis by the Central Food Laboratory and thereby the petitioners have
\nlost their valuable right to get the sample examined by the Central Food
\nLaboratory which resulted in grave prejudice to the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
In (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 779 (Baskar Vembu, Indian Inhabitant, Nominee of Cadbury
\nIndia Ltd., Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu at
\nthe instance of K.Jebaraja Shobana Kumar, Food Inspector, Food & Drugs,
\nAdministration, Tamil Nadu), this Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In the present case, even if the stand taken by the respondent is
\naccepted that the samples were drawn in the prescribed manner, there is a gross
\nfailure on their part in launching the prosecution instantly as enunciated in
\nthe Act.  Notice under Section 13(2) of Act came to be served on the petitioners
\nonly on 04.10.2005 and by that time, food sample had become so decomposed and
\ntotally unfit for analysis.  Strikingly, there is no explanation forthcoming on
\nthe part of the prosecution for such serious lapses.  The valuable right of the
\naccused\/petitioners is taken away.  In such circumstances, the Court has no
\nother option except to quash the entire proceedings pending against the
\npetitioners before the trial Court.”\n<\/p>\n
In G.Sivakumar and Others Vs. Food Inspector, City Municipal Corporation of
\nCoimbatore reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1035, wherein, this Court has held as
\nfollows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“Admittedly, in this case, the delay between the launching of prosecution
\nand forwarding of form III was beyond six months and is hit by Rule 9-B of the
\nPrevention of Food Adulteration Rules.  That apart, the report of the Public
\nAnalyst is dated 12.09.2001 and the prosecution came to be launched on
\n07.09.2004 when the complaint was preferred and it was taken on file on
\n16.09.2004.  On 21.09.2004 the petitioners\/accused received notice and if they
\ncalculate the said period, the prosecution has been launched after a period of
\nnearly 3 years.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of such a long delay in launching prosecution in the present case,
\nthe petitioners\/accused are put to serious prejudice as they lost their right of
\nhaving the sample analyzed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t7.As per the above said citations, because of the delay in issuing
\n13(2)notice, the petitioners were prevented from sending the sample for second
\nanalysis within the time prescribed.  In such circumstances, I am of the opinion
\nthat all the citations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon
\nthe order of this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5765 of 2009, where, the learned
\nJudge cited the view of his Lordship Justice Malai Subramanian in an earlier
\noccasion, which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The petitioner seeks  to quash the proceedings pending against them in
\nall the matters where they were prosecuted for the offence of misbranding under
\nthe provisions of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. According to the learned senior counsel, the label pasted on the
\ncontainers of the food products do not contain the term “up to” as ordered in
\nthe letter of the State Local Health Authority and joint Director in his
\ncommunication dated 28.09.2001.  The petitioner plead that they are not aware of
\nthe distinction between new label and the old one.  They also undertake to paste
\nthe new labels on the food products hereafter.  It does not appear to be a grave
\noffence of misbranding.  There is not much distinction between the contents of
\nthe earlier label and the new label except incorporation of certain words.
\nIt is also appropriate to consider the decision of this court made in
\nCrl.O.P.(MD) No.11867 of 2009, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
\n\t“A perusal of the complaint would reveal that it has been merely stated
\nthat ‘sample is misbranded as it is not labelled in accordance with Rules
\n32(f)(i) and 42 (zzz) 17 of P.F.A. Rules, 1955.  It is not quite clear as to how
\nthe sample is misbranded and the averments made in the complaint are also bereft
\nof any particulars.  There must be a specific averment that the customers are
\nbeing mislead on account of misbranding and in the absence of any such clear
\naverments, it cannot be said that the customers are mislead or misdirected.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.A perusal of the Public Analyst’s report would reveal that the Public
\nAnalyst has simply stated that the sample was misbranded since it is not
\nlabelled in accordance with the  requirements of Rule 32 (a)(e) and (f) of the
\nP.F.A. Rules 1955, but he has not mentioned as to how and what manner the sample
\nwas misbranded.  There must be a specific averment that the customers being
\nmislead on account of misbranding and in the absence of any such clear
\naverments, it cannot be said that the customers are mislead or misdirected.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  In the above stated circumstances, as already stated that there is a
\ndelay in issuing 13(2) notice and the details of misbranding has not been
\nmentioned, I am of the view that the complaint against the petitioner is liable
\nto be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In fine, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings
\nin S.T.C.No.6 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
\nNo.I, Tirunelveli, are quashed.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
\nare closed.\n<\/p>\n
arul<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Food Inspector,
\n  Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation,
\n  Tirunelveli,
\n  Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/08\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Criminal Original Petition(MD) No.7988 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 1.A.Eswaramoorthy 2.TPSH.Partheeban Ram Sait, 3.P.Prasanthi 4.J.D.I.Rajasekar 5.Margin Free Market Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by TPSH.Partheeban Ram […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-27T10:44:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-27T10:44:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2053,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010\",\"name\":\"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-27T10:44:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-27T10:44:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-27T10:44:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010"},"wordCount":2053,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010","name":"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-27T10:44:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-eswaramoorthy-vs-the-food-inspector-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Food Inspector on 10 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5694\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}