Ajay Kumar Khetan vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hon''ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.—By this petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashment of criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 179/2001 for the offence punishable u/s 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ''the Act, 1954'') read with Rule 32 (c) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ''Rules, 1955). As per undisputed facts of the case, the present petitioner was found in possession of food (Lahar Pepsi) manufactured by C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Raipur which was holding the petitioner for sale. Same was purchased by Food Inspector. Address of manufacturer company on the bottle was written as C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Raipur. No detail description of the address has been mentioned in the bottle. Finally complaint was lodged against the present petitioner and M/s. C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, nominee of such company.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the copy of the complaint and copies of other documents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seller and he has purchased the food article from manufacturer and manufacturer has given its address in the bottle of the food as C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Raipur and such company is big and known company situated at Raipur. Nothing more is required for its address and address written in article is complete address. Even otherwise the present petitioner is not required to write or mention full address of food article, he was retailer and if any offence is committed same has been committed by the company and not by the present petitioner. He has not violated Rule 32 (c) (i) the Rules, 1955.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, , in which the Supreme Court has held that in absence of any material showing appellant-accused were manufacturer or holding license for manufacture of offending beverage i.e. Lahar Pepsi, criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the petition and submits that manufacturer was under obligation to mention complete address in packing/bottling of the food article in terms Rule 32 (c) (i) of the Rules, 1955 and the present petitioner was under obligation to sale or possess for selling the food article in conformity with the aforesaid Rules, but the present petitioner retailer has not sold the aforesaid food article in conformity with Section 7(ii) of the Act, 1954 read with Rule 32 (c) (i) of the Rules, 1955 and thereby committed illegality.

As per complaint and inspection of food article, bottle of Lahar Pepsi containing liquid has been sold by the petitioner to Food Inspector. Address of manufacturer has been mentioned in the bottle as C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Raipur. Rule 32 (c) (i) of the Rules, 1955 reads as under:

Rule 32 (c) (i) the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit, if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be;

In accordance with Rule 32 (c) (i) of the Rules, 1955, manufacture is required to right name and complete address of manufacturer. Address of manufacturer has been written in the bottle as C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, although as per other documents the present petitioner has informed the Food Inspector that he has purchased food article from manufacturer M/s. C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Urla, Raipur, but same has not been mentioned in package/bottle in which address of manufacturer has been written as C.G. Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Raipur. Even in the bottle name of area, locality and State has not been mentioned. Aforesaid address mentioned in the bottle is not complete address, it is incomplete address and same is not in conformity with the Rule 32 (c) (i) of the Rules. 1955. Therefore, criminal proceeding pending before the Court concern against the petitioner is not abuse of process of law.

By taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner the trial Court has not committed any illegality warranting interference. I do not find any scope for interference. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.