P. Gopalakrishna and another vs Food Inspector, Division III Officer of the Assistant Food Controller Zone-1, Visakhapatnam and another

K.S. Appa Rao, J.—This is an application to quash the proceedings in CC No. 88 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku Valley, Visakhapatnam District registered under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i), 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the "Act").

The case of the prosecution is that Food Inspector, Division-III, Visakhapatnam District on 28.9.2006 at 1 p.m. had visited the kirana shop of accused No. 1, State Bank of India Road, Araku Valley and lifted the samples of Priya Chilli Powder 100 grams sealed packets, as per the procedure prescribed under the Act and sent the same to Public Analyst. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated as the sample did not conform to the standard of non-volatile ether extract. According to the Analyst Report, non-volatile ether extract should not be less than 12% wt. but it was only 9.74%. On receipt of the notice u/s 13(2) of the Act, application was made to send the 2nd sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. On the application made the 2nd sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Pune. By his report dated 23.1.2008, the Director, Central Food Laboratory, opined that the sample contain 10.16% of non-volatile ether extract which should be less than 12% and hence did not conform to the standards of chillies and capsicum (Lal Mirchi) powder as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners or their persons, who manufactured the samples that were lifted by the Food Inspector and sent for analysis and since charge-sheet shows that the purchased bill, supplier''s name and addresses etc., were not furnished, petitioner cannot be made liable for punishment under the Act, because the provisions of Section 14 of the Act are not complied with and so the charge-sheet against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. He also contended that in view of the inordinate delay in filing the charge-sheet also, the charge-sheet against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in CC No. 88 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku Valley, Visakhapatnam District?

The petitioners herein were impleaded as accused on the basis of lable declaration found on the packets alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused No. 1. As per the complaint averments, on enquiry by the Food Inspector, the accused told that he has no purchase bill of the above said Priya Chilli Powder of 100 gms., sealed packets from which the present samples were drawn. The petitioners, are said to be manufacturers of the product lifted by the Food Inspector. As seen from the averments in the complaint, the complainant found 7 numbers of Priya Chilli Powder 100 gms. sealed packets kept in a wooden rack and Food Inspector purchased the aforesaid six packets of chilli powder, on enquiry, accused No. 1 told that he has no purchase bills for the said packets. After following the procedure, the Food Inspector sent sample to the Public Analyst delivered report dated 10.11.2006 stating that the sample did not confirm the standard of non-volalite ether extract and therefore, adulterated. According to the Analyst Report, the non-volalite ether extract should not be less than 12% by wt., but it is only 9.74%. The complaint was filed on 20.8.2007. On receipt of the notice u/s 13(2) of the Act, an application was made to send the 2nd sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, the said application was allowed and 2nd sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Pune. By his report dated 23.1.2008, the Director, Central Food Laboratory opined that the sample contained 10.16% non-volalite ether extract, it should not be less than 12% and hence did not conform to the standards of chillies and capsicum (Lal Mirchi) powder as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules.

Even according to the complaint, lable declaration is to the effect that the product was manufactured on 1.6.2006 and it is best before 12 months from the date of the manufacture. The shelf life of the product expired on 1.6.2007 and the complaint was filed on 20.8.2007, nearly two months after the shelf life. The Central Food Laboratory examined the sample on 7.1.2008, nearly 7 months after the expiry of shelf life. Because of the delay, there must have been variation in the standards prescribed. Two reports have given different results. As the complaint and notice u/s 13(2) of the Act was given after shelf life of the product, the petitioners could not apply to the Central Food Laboratory within a period of shelf life. Though the Public Analyst Report is dated 10.11.2006, the complaint was filed only on 20.8.2007. Petitioners who are said to be manufacturers of the product lifted by the Food Inspector, can be proceeded against only if the provisions of the Section 14 of the Act are complied with. Since there is nothing on record to show that the products purchased by the Food Inspector was supplied by the petitioner to accused No. 1 and since admittedly A1 did not produce any bill and has not disclosed the name and addresses of the supplier of the product lifted by the Food Inspector from him, it cannot be said that they supplied the product to accused No. 1 for public sale. So, accused No. 1 assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed an offence under the Act, in view of issuance of notice u/s 13(2) of the Act, which was given after shelf life of the product was expired. Therefore, the petitioners could not have been applied for Central Food Laboratory within a period of shelf life. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed the offence under the Act and as such no prosecution could be launched against the petitioners only on the basis of lable declaration alone and therefore, continuous of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, the charge-sheet in CC No. 88 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku Valley, Visakhapatnam District is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 88 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku Valley, Visakhapatnam District are quashed.