THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1428 of 2009 Dated: 26th August, 2009 Between: Sri Sai Krishna Sales Corporation rep. by D.V.D.Murthy …Petitioner/A2 and 1. Food Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmunry, Easto Godavari District & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1428 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 25.06.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3780 of 2008 in CC No.333 of 2002 on the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/A2 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by M/s.Sri Sai Krishna Sales Corporation rep. by D.V.D.Murthy are: On 05.12.2001 at about 09.00 A.M., Food Inspector R.Kali Babu along with Sanitary Maistry D.Danavai, inspected Rajastan General Stores situated at D.No.31.7.52, Pappula Street, Rajahmundry, and found A1 Amarchand transacting the business. The Food Inspector collected sample of Chilly powder from the shop of A1 in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder. He sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis the sample found to be adulterated. After following the due process and on receipt of the Public Analyst Report, a notice in Form-VI was sent to A1 to furnish the required particulars under the provisions of the Act by registered post with acknowledgement due on 05.12.2001. A2 M/s.Sri Saikrishna Sales Corporation stated to have supplied the Chilly powder to A1. The Food Inspector presented a complaint before III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as CC No.333 of 2002. A2 M/s.Sri Saikrishna Sales Corporation entered appearance and filed Crl.M.P.No.3780 of 2008 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 25.06.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 submits that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 19(2) of the Act, and therefore, the petition filed by him under Section 227 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. 5. Section 19(2) of the Act, deals with the defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under the Act. It is for the petitioner to prove during the course of trial that he is entitled for protection. This is a matter, which is required to be gone into during the trial. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/A2. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th August, 2009. cs