Madhya Pradesh High Court
Marico Indistries Ltd (Now Known As ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2017
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
M. CR. C. No.11449/2016
Marico Industries Ltd (now known as Marico Ltd.)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. K.
Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B. D. Singh, learned G. A. for respondent/State.
*********
ORDER
(Pronounced on 25/10/2017) Per S.K. Gangele J
1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of Criminal Proceedings registered against the petitioner-company vide Criminal Case No.5259/1995. Petitioner-company has been prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (In short "the Act").
2. Food Inspector inspected the shop of Mohan Trading Company Gandhiganj Jabalpur. He found respondent No.2 Mr. Mohan Agrawal selling Refined Sunflower Oil in wholesale. Food Inspector intended to purchase Refined Sunflower Oil because he was in apprehension that Refined Sunflower Oil was adulterated. He had issued a notice to Mr. Mohan Agrawal and thereafter he purchased 375/- ml Oil and three samples were prepared from aforesaid Oil and after completion of formalities one of the sample was sent to the Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Bhopal. According to report received from State Laboratory the Oil was found adulterated. Food Inspector filed a 2 criminal complaint against the petitioner company, all the partners and Managing Directors of the petitioner company. The trial Court registered a criminal case against the petitioner company for commission of offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act.
3. Petitioner filed the present petition for quashment of criminal proceedings on the ground that self life of Oil was twelve months from the date of its production. The sample of Refined Sunflower Swikar Oil was taken by the Food Inspector on 16.3.1992 while the report of Analyst is of dated 21.4.1992 and sanction for prosecution was granted on 31.12.1993, thereafter complaint was filed. Notice under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was issued to the petitioner, after expiry of one year from the date of taking samples. Hence, the petitioner could not sent second sample for analysis, the valuable right of the petitioner granted under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been violated. Hence, the petitioner company could not be prosecuted for aforesaid offence.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- company has argued the same. In support of his contentions Senior counsel relied on the following judgment of the Court:
(i) Sri Prakash Desai Vs. State of M. P. 2015(2) FAC 441.
(ii) Prahlad Gattani Vs. State of M. P. 2012 (2) FAC 489.
(iii) ITC Ltd Vs. State of M. P. 2012 (2) FAC 441.
5. There is no dispute in regard to question of law that if the company or an accused has been deprived from its/his/her valuable right given under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act then criminal proceedings is to be quashed. 3
6. In the present case the petitioner has pleaded that self life of Oil for which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector is one year. Learned Senior counsel admitted the fact that self life was not mentioned in the raper of the container in which the Oil was packed. However, he has placed his reliance on certain articles and other material to prove the fact that self life of Oil is of one year. In my opinion, aforesaid questions could be decided by the Court after taking evidence. The evidence to the some extent have been recorded by the Court. Until it is proved that self life of the Oil was expired prior to issuance of notice criminal Proceedings could not be quashed.
7. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the observation that petitioner can raise all the objections during trial and after taking into consideration the evidence trial Court shall consider the aforesaid submission.
8. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(S.K. Gangele) Judge kkc.
4HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M. CR. C. No.11449/2016 Marico Industries Ltd (now known as Marico Ltd.) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B. D. Singh, learned G. A. for respondent/State.
ORDER Post for: 25/10/2017.
(S.K. Gangele) Judge.
24.10.2017