Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2019
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.49118 of 2019 (Rambabu vs. State of MP) Indore, dated : 30.11.2019 Shri Vinayak Balchandani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anil Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant - State.
Heard. Perused the case diary.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant - Rambabu S/o Dhulilal Dangi is implicated in Crime No.285/2019 registered at Police Station - Khilchipur, District Rajgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC along with 48 and 50 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and he is in custody since 30.10.2019.
As per the prosecution story, on 30.07.2019, Food Officer inspected Rambabu Dairy Farm, Fatehpur Road, Tehsil Khilchipur which belonged to the applicant and took samples of mixed milk of cow and buffalo and also took samples of maltodextrin which was kept separately. It was suspected that the milk could contain portions of maltodextrin. An analysis of the seized milk was carried out and it was found that the milk had tested positive for maltodextrin and was thus a sub-standard milk under Section 3(1)(zx) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Consequently, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under the afore-mentioned provisions.
Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.49118 of 2019 (Rambabu vs. State of MP) maltodextrin is not a substance which is injurious to health and is used in infant milk formulation whereas milk fat is replaced/substituted with sucrose, dextrin and maltodextrin and thus it is a substitute item used in the infant milk formulation and not injurious to health. He has further submitted that the case only pertains to breach of provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, which is triable only by the Executive Officer of the level of the District Magistrate and the provisions of Section 420 of IPC are not attracted as there is no person stated to have been cheated in this matter. He has placed reliance on the decision of the M. P. High Court in the case of Smt. Meera Agrawal vs. The Union of India & others, 2010 (1) FAC 114 in which it has been mentioned that when adulterated milk was seized, the provisions of Section 420 of IPC was not applicable because there was no material on record to show that somebody was cheated. He submits that the maximum penalty under Sections 48 and 50 of the Food Safety and Standards Act is Rs.5.00 lacs and there is no substantive jail sentence for committing offence under this Act. He has also submitted that charge-sheet has since been filed.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State was also heard. On due consideration of the aforesaid, mainly submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I allow this bail application and it is directed that the applicant - Rambabu shall 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.49118 of 2019 (Rambabu vs. State of MP) be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Committal Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court/Committal Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
M.Cr.C. No.49118/2019 is allowed and stands disposed of Certified copy as per rules.
(Shailendra Shukla) Judge gp Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 2019.12.02 10:23:11 +05'30'