HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.6538 and 6539 of 2009 Dated : 21.08.2009 Between : Ram Narayan & another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.6538 and 6539 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri E.Manohar, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.Leo Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent, in both the cases. As both the petitions raise identical questions, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are facing prosecution for the alleged offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the first petitioner is involved in the criminal proceedings as the nominee of the second petitioner in both the cases. The samples of ‘Kissan Mixed Fruit Jam’ taken by the Food Inspector were found on analysis by the Public Analyst to be adulterated and on ascertainment of the nominee particulars from the Company, the alleged nominee also has been made as party to the criminal cases. The petitioners claim that action could have been taken against the manufacturer only under Section 20-A of the Act as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2714 of 2003 dated 31.12.2007, which was followed in Crl.P.No.2184 of 2009 and batch dated 29.06.2009. The petitioners further claim that at the relevant time, the first petitioner was not the nominee of the second petitioner and one Sapan Sarma was the nominee of the second petitioner. Consequently, the petitioners sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad, Warangal District, and C.C.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.2714 of 2003 answered a reference holding that unless the Food Inspector has picked up the sample for analysis right from the place where it is manufactured itself, he has to necessarily prosecute the manufacturer or dealer or distributor or agent only upon prima facie establishing their link to the alleged adulterated food product, which has been sold or offered for sale, which cannot be only on the strength and basis of the information gathered in terms of Section 14-A of the Act. The Division Bench, of course, preserved the right of the Magistrate to act under Section 20-A of the Act. Following the said decision, Crl.P.Nos.2184 of 2009 and batch were decided on 29.06.2009, which incidentally were at the instance of the present petitioners only and the facts are identical. There is no material to dispute herein also that the first petitioner ceased to be a nominee of the second petitioner for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act much prior to the inspection by the Food Inspector in each of these two cases and there is no other material except the labels affixed to the containers to link the second petitioner with the alleged offences. Consequently, like in the earlier petitions, the first petitioner should not be made liable even with reference to Section 20-A of the Act while the second petitioner getting exonerated for the present will be subject to the power of the Magistrate under Section 20-A of the Act. Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad, Warangal District, and C.C.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, against the petitioners are quashed subject to such quashing not precluding the exercise of power available under Section 20-A of the Act against the second petitioner or/and its nominee as on the respective dates of lifting of samples, if, upon evaluation of the evidence gathered during the trial, but before the same is concluded, the concerned Magistrate deems the exercise of such power to be called for on the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the criminal petitions are ordered accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 21st August, 2009 SUR