IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2591 of 2008 Between: K.V.Srinivasulu and another ..... PETITIONERS And The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Food Inspector, Hindupur Municipality, Hindupur, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2591 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners are A1 and A2. The Food Inspector, Hindupur Municipality laid charge sheet against five accused in STC.No.10/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, Anantapur District, alleging that they committed the offences under Secs.16(1)(a)(1), Sec.7(ii) and 2(ix)(g) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). Considering that the petitioners are entitled to the protection under Sec.19(2) of the Act, the petitioners seek for quashing of the charge sheet against them. On 08.12.1998, at about 1.40 p.m. the Food Inspector visited M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Enterprises belonging to A1 and A2. A1 and A2 were the distributors of Supreme Vanaspathi, manufactured by S.S.D.Oil Mills Company Limited, Prathapgirivari street, Railpet, Guntur. Samples were lifted by the Food Inspector by purchasing 15 packets of 100 ml. The samples were found to contain adulterated foodstuff. When the case was laid against all the accused, the petitioners contend that they are protected by Sec.19(2) of the Act. Sec.19(2) of the Act reads as under: Sec.19(2): The 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 duly licenced 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. Sec.19(2) of the Act exempts the vendor from the purview of the Act when the adulterated foodstuff was purchased by him from any manufacturer or distributor and that the vendor did not tamper with the purchased article. When any food article is sold by a distributor, indeed the principal, who manufactured the food article might become liable in the event the sample was found to be adulterated. Inasmuch as the complicity of the distributor in selling the foodstuff, it was observed by this Court in M.Y.Jagadesh v.State of A.P.[1] that the distributor is protected by Sec.19(2) of the Act, if it is shown that the distributor sold the foodstuff without tampering with the same. Admittedly, the Food Inspector, at the time of the inspection, purchased Supreme Vanaspati of M/s.S.S.D.Oil Mills Company Limited from the petitioners. It is not the case of the Food Inspector that the petitioners tampered with the food item. Consequently, the petitioners as distributors are not liable for prosecution. As rightly submitted by Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, continuation of the case against the petitioners would be abuse of the legal process. Where prima facie case cannot be made out against the petitioners/A1 & A2 in view of the protection under Sec.19(2) of the Act, their claim for quashment of the case against them is justified. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. The charge sheet in STC.No.10/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, Anantapur District is quashed as against petitioners, who are Accused Nos.1 and 2 therein. No order as to costs. ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Dated: 07.12.2011 Dsr Note: Furnish copy in one week. B/o Dsr [1] 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 375 (AP)