HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8333 OF 2009 DATED.29-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 (For short, ‘A-2 and A-3’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.248 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani, Karimnagar District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 7 (ii), 2 (ix) (k) and Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For short, ‘The Act’) and Rule 32 (a) (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-2 and A-3, the second respondent is the complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case hereafter. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The complainant was appointed and notified as the Food Inspector in the entire area of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No.146 HM & FW department, dated 18-05-2004 and working as Food Inspector Division – II of Karimnagar district. While so, on 12-08-2008 at about 11-30 a.m. the complainant along with his office attender inspected M/s. Sai Sandeep Kirana store, situated at Nagapally cross road, Begumpet, Kamanpur mandal and found Sri K. Sudhakar, vendor and proprietor of that shop conducting business and the complainant disclosed his identity to the vendor and called one punch witness by name G. Shankaraiah and in the presence of vendor and the said witness inspected the entire premises and found stock of 20 packets of refined cooking oil, kept in a rack having the label declaration as “Arun Gold Refined Cooking Oil, net weight 1 liter, batch No.1, packed on August, 2008, MRP Rs.75/- CSR, EOP/AP/Z VI/2009, best before six months from the date of packing, packed by M/s. Arun Enterprises, 10-1-221, Mangammathota, Siddipet, Medak district along with other food items”. Further, the complainant enquired about the nature and purpose of storing the stock of oil packets and the vendor disclosed that the oil packets of Arun Gold Refined Cooking Oil were kept for sale for human consumption. Then the complainant suspecting Arun Gold Refined Cooking Oil packets to be adulterated and misbranded not in conformity with Rule 32 (a) (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 purchased 3 sealed packets of the same out of a stock of 20 packets by paying cash of Rs.225/- and obtained cash receipt and acknowledged the signatures of the vendor and witness. Thereafter, he completed all the formalities as required under the Act and sent one sample to the R.F.S.L. Nacharam, Hyderabad which on analysis found it to be adulterated and misbranded. Then the complainant obtained written consent under Section 20 (1) of P.F.A. Act, 1954 from the Director I.P.M. PH Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad, later he/she launched prosecution against A-1 to A-3 vide R.C. No.8645/FR/2008, dated 09-06-2008. Hence, A-1 to A-3 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 that no notice was given to A-2 and A-3 as contemplated under Rule 32 (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 to inform them to take steps to send the second sample for chemical examination to establish their innocence in the matter within six (6) months from the date of collecting the sample and thereby they were denied the opportunity to do so and as such merely mentioning the name of the manufacturer on the label cannot form a basis for prosecuting A-2 and A-3 in the absence of connecting link between A-2 and A-3 and the misbranded and adulterated packets of cooking oil placing reliance upon decision of this Court reported in T. Srihari Limited and others V. State of A.P.[1]. It is further his contention that the complainant failed to produce relevant bill in respect of purchase of the said three cooking oil packets. At the end he pleads that the proceedings are liable to be quashed, in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State has opposed the application. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. It is not in dispute that so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, the provisions of Rule 32 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 were not followed and thereby they were not given opportunity to take steps for sending the second sample for analysis and report to prove their innocence in the case. In the decision cited supra, it is observed with reference to relevant circumstances that the name of the manufacturer/supplier marketing agency found on the label of the product form basis for prosecuting them and in the absence of any link between them and the adulterated product, the prosecution was liable to be quashed. The same principle holds good here. Therefore, no 247 case is made out against A-2 and A-3 in the case and accordingly, the proceedings are liable to be quashed, in so far as they are concerned. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Calender Case No.248 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani, Karimnagar District, in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:29-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8333 OF 2009 December, 29, 2011 DSH [1] 2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 459 (A.P.)