SALY PAUL Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1873/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry for the offences punishable under Sections 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section7(i)(v), Section 2(1a)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 5 Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to for short 'the Act and Rules'). According to the petitioners, going by Annexure-A Charge Sheet and Annexure-B Report of the Public Analyst, no offence is disclosed against them and the petitioners 1 to 3 who are the Directors of the 5th petitioner company are not liable to be prosecuted in the light of Section 17(2) of the above Act. Thus, the petitioners seek an order to quash Annexure-A complaint and all further proceedings thereon.

(2.) Annexure-A is the complaint filed by the Food Inspector-lst respondent herein, in which the allegation is that on 9.9.2002, at about 2.30 p.m. he had inspected the 5th petitioner factory, in the presence of witnesses and fully in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law and after given notice in form No. VI to 1st accused and demanded 450 grams of Coriander, an article of human food, kept for sale in a gunny bag of 50 kg. The article so purchased was sampled as per mahazar and subsequently the same was sent to the Public Analyst, Ernakulam for report. Thereafter the complainant received Annexure-B report from the Public Analyst and according to the said report, the sample coriander does not conform to the standards prescribed for coriander under the PFA Act 1955 and therefore adulterated.

(3.) It is further alleged that thereafter statutory formalities were adopted so as to collect the details of the licence etc. Thus according to the complainant, a letter was sent to the District Food Inspector, Kottayam requesting to intimate the nomination details of the 5th petitioner company. It is averred that the District Food Inspector, Kottayam informed the complainant that the 5th petitioner company has no valid nomination. According to the complainant, on further enquiry, he understood that the Chairman and Managing Directors and the Directors are responsible for the day to day administration and conduct of business of the company under the provisions of the PFA Act and Rules and thus, according to the complainant, the Directors of the company were included in the array of accused. Thus, according to the complainant, accused No. 1 had sold adulterated Coriander for and on behalf of accused Nos.2 to 4 to the complainant Food Inspector and therefore all are liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the PFA Act and Rules. Thus according to the complainant, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 16(1) (a)(i) read with Section 7(i)(v), S.2(la)(c) of the PFA Act, 1954 and Rule 5 Appendix-B item No.A.05.08 CORIANDER (Dhania) WHOLE of PFA Rules 1955. Thus he lodged Annexure-A complaint on the basis of which the court below took cognizance and instituted C.C.813/03. The petitioner approached this Court stating that Annexure B Report of the Public Analyst does not disclose anything to show that the food item w hich subjected for chemical analysis is not in accordance with the standard prescribed as per Rules and Appendix. It is also averred that accused Nos. I to 3 are the Directors of the 5th petitioner company and the company has already nominated petitioner No. 4 in terms of Section 17(2) of the Act and therefore no prosecution can be launched against the petitioners 1 to 3 and therefore, the very filing of the complaint itself and all proceedings thereon against the petitioners 1 to 3 will amount to abuse of process of court and therefore on that ground also they prayed to quash Annexure-A complaint.