Madras High Court
J.Jegadeesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 20.06.2022
Delivered on 13.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.6820 and 6821 of 2022
1. J.Jegadeesh,
2. S.Dhanabalan,
: Petitioners
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Food Safety Officer,
(Code No. 109 and 120 Chellampatti and
Vadipatti Taluk),
Health and Family Welfare Training
Centre Campus,
Vishwanathapuram,
Madurai District-625 014.
: Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in impugned Private
Complaint in STC.No. 668 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022
Court, T.Vadipatti dt 09/07/2021 filed U/s 190(1)(A) and 200 of Cr.P.C
and Section 51,59(1), 58 and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
in so far as the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 are concerned and quash
the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : M/s.Pinaygash I,
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in STC.No. 668 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, T.Vadipatti.
2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the first and third accused persons in the case in S.T.C.No.668 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, T.Vadipatti. The second accused is one M/s.Vaanmathi Oil Store (Packer), Madurai. The first and second petitioners are the Accountant and owner of the Tamilan Lorry Service, respectively. The Respondent/Food Safety Officer, while prosecuting the second 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022 accused/M/s.Vaanmathi Oil Store (Packer), Madurai, for selling unsafe rice bran oil and also for selling misleading, misbranded, substandard, prohibited and restricted food, jointly prosecuted the Accountant and the owner of the Tamilan Lorry Service. The Food Safety Officer, on 25.08.2020 at about 04.30 p.m, came to the office of the second petitioner, took the oil, which had been kept for forwarding to the addressee, but the respondent forwarded the same for analysis. After obtaining the report, which states that the sample is unsafe, the respondent prosecuted the transport owner and the Accountant. They are no way connected with the said oil company. They only received the parcel and transported the same as directed by the second accused. They were not selling the oil to any customer. They have run only courier service. The petitioners did not aware of the standard of the goods. Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioners herein, is unsustainable, which has to be quashed.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that admittedly, the petitioners are the first and the third accused in this case, 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022 who are the Accountant and owner of the Tamilan Lorry Service, respectively. They are not dealing with the sample oil.
4.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by both the parties.
5.On a perusal of records, it reveals that the Food Safety Officer, on 25.08.2020 at about 4.30pm went to the second petitioner's office and found Palmolein oil in 15 kilogram, from that he/she took 500 milliliter of oil in four packets and forwarded the same for analysis. The Food Analyst, Guindy, sent a report on 30.09.2020, as it is unsafe. Therefore, after obtaining the proper sanction from the Commissioner, the criminal proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners as well as M/s.Vaanmathi Oil Store (Packer). The fact is that the petitioners are accountant and owner of the said lorry office, but there is no material on record to show that they are dealing with seized Palmolein oil. In the absence of any material to show that these petitioners are dealing with Palmolein oil either as a manufacturer or a retail seller, they cannot be 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022 prosecuted. The petitioners are only running the lorry office and Courier service. In the absence of any material to show that they are handling the oil commercially except doing courier service, they cannot be prosecuted. However, the petitioners are prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 51, 59(1), 58 and 63 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The provisions runs as follows:
'51. Penalty for sub-standard food.-Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees;
59.Punishment for Unsafe Food-Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,--
(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees;
(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022 extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees;
(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees.
58. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided.-Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees.
63. Punishment for carrying out a business without licence.-If any person or food business operator (except the persons exempted from licensing under sub-section (2) of section 31 of this Act), himself or by any person on his behalf who is required to obtain licence, manufactures, sells, stores or distributes or imports any article of food without licence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees.'
6.In the present case, the petitioners are being the accountant and the owner of the Tamilan Lorry Service and not dealing with the oil seized by the Food Safety Officer and even admitting the food analyst report, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted, as they are not dealing with the seized oil commercially, except doing courier service as directed by the second accused. Under these circumstances, continuing the criminal 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022 proceedings against the petitioners is a clear misuse of process of law.
7.Hence, the criminal proceedings in S.T.C.No.668 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, T.Vadipatti, is quashed against the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.07.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lr Note: Issue Order copy on 13.07.2022 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022 V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
lr To
1.The Food Safety Officer, (Code No. 109 and 120 Chellampatti and Vadipatti Taluk), Health and Family Welfare Training Centre Campus, Vishwanathapuram, Madurai District-625 014.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Pre-Delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10846 of 2022 13.07.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis