NESTLE INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 7-6-2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer (Fast Track Court No. 4), Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 310 of 2008 as also order dated 8-8-2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Vadodara below Exs.61 and 57 in PFA Case No. 3981 of 1997 and to discharge the accused No. 3 of the offences alleged in PFA Case No. 3981 of 1997 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Vadodara.

(2.) The complaint in question was filed by Senior Food Inspector, Vadodara Municipal Corporation, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class(Municipal), against the applicant company for the offences punishable under Sections2(ix)(a), 2(ix)(d), 7(1)(v) and 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954('the Act' for short) alleging inter alia that the sample of Mango Tikha Pickle (Maggi) collected at Shree Mahalaxmi Provision Stores of the applicant Company when sent to Public Analyst was reported to be adulterated and did not conform to the standards of pickle in edible oil laid down in item A.16.16.(ii) of Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules('the Rules for short). In pursuance of filing of said complaint, learned Magistrate sent the sample to Central Food Laboratory at the instance of accused No. 1. As per the report of Director, Central Food Laboratory also, the sample was adulterated and misbranded under Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act and the Rules. However, when the complainant was examined by the learned Magistrate at Ex.29, it was mentioned that sample was meeting with the standards as per the report of Central Food Laboratory and hence, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed applications at Ex.57 while the accused No. 1 filed application at Ex.61 for discharge. The learned Magistrate discharged the accused Nos. 1 and 2 while proceedings against the accused No. 3 were directed to be continued. When the said order was challenged by the accused No. 3 in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara, it was dismissed with cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel, Mr. K.I. Parekh for Ms. Megha Jani for the Petitioner, learned APP, Ms. C.M. Shah for the Respondent No. 1 and learned advocate, Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya for the Respondent No. 2.