Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. A. Pavani W/O. Keshavnath vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Its Public ... on 21 June, 2006
ORDER G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is A-6 in C.C. No. 324 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalli. She was charged for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (a) (1), 7 (1) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').
2. A-1 is the dealer and A-6 is the distributor. A-3, A-4 and A-5 are the manufacturers of MTR Instant Gulab Jamun Mix. The Food Inspector visited the shop of A-1 and found 10 sealed packets of Gulab Jamun Mix by suspecting that they are adulterated. He purchased three samples and after analysis, the analyst reported that they are adulterated. When the Food Inspector ascertained from A-1 as to from whom he purchased the packets, A-1 replied that he purchased the packets from A-6. When A-6 was questioned, she informed that there was an invoice issued by MTR Foods Limited for supply of the MTR Instant Gulab Jamun Mix, therefore, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against all the accused mentioning that they are responsible for the adulteration of the food.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the Gulab Jamun Mix was contained in a sealed packet prepared by MTR Foods Limited, the accused did not know the contents of the food article under the bona fide impression that she purchased the packets for sale, therefore, she is not liable to be prosecuted for the said offences. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in P. Unnikrishnan v. Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality , wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the offence under the Act, observed that the accused sold food article in sealed tins purchased from the representative of a firm with a bill having warranty and the firm is located at a distance of 200 KMs away from the shop of the accused, therefore, no knowledge about non-existence of the firm could be attributed to accused. The accused sold the food article in the same manner and condition in which it was purchased by him. The accused in turn sold the article in the same manner to the Food Inspector, therefore, the accused is entitled for discharge.
4. In Ram Dhan Rikhi Ram v. State Of Punjab 2001 (2) FAC 306, the Punjab High Court observed that the Food Inspector took a sample from the shop of the accused and sent it to the public analyst and found that it was misbranded. At the time when the Food Inspector has taken the sample, the accused petitioner had informed the Food Inspector that he had purchased the packet of Iodine Salt from the manufacturer under a bill and handed over the copy of the bill to the Food Inspector and this fact was incorporated in the seizure panchanama. It was further held that the criminal complaint and the subsequent proceedings taken thereon would be an abuse of process of the Court, inasmuch as it could not be said that the accused petitioner has committed any offence, as he was saved under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 12-A and Rule 14. Section 19 (2) of the Act provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he had purchased article of food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a warranty in the prescribed from and the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he had sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Rule 12-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, provides that every manufacturer, distributor or dealer selling an article of food to a vendor shall give either separately or in the bill, cash memo or label, a warranty. The Punjab High Court, while following the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Unnikrishnan's case (supra), held that the accused is not liable for prosecution.
5. In Amar Chand And Ors. v. Staet of Punjab 1984 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 167, it was held, by placing reliance on Section 14 of the Act, that a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of sale of any article of food given by manufacturer or distributor or dealer to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be warranty given by such manufacturer, dealer or distributor. The accused placed reliance on the Photostat copy issued by the manufacturer which indicated that packets containing chilli powder were sold to the accused petitioner. It was held that the accused petitioner had purchased chilli powder under legal and valid warranty.
6. Section 19 (2) of the Prevention Food Adulteration Act, 1954 gives exemption for certain persons and it reads as follows:
19 (2). A Vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves-
(a) that he purchased the article of food-
(i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duty licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer,
(ii) in any other case, from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, with a written warranty in the prescribed form; and
(b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Courts, the accused, who have produced the bill to show that he purchased the food article from the manufacturer or distributor and he sold it in the same form without manipulating the packets supplied to him, is not liable to be prosecuted by virtue of Section 19 (2) of the Act. As the petitioner is a distributor, she is protected under Section 19 (2) of the Act, therefore, the prosecution against her is liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner is quashed.