CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PARRYS CONFECTIONERY LIMITED, MADRAS Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR OF UDHAGAMANDALAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.3472 of 1986 pending on the file of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Udhagamandalam. They are being prosecuted at the instance of the respondent, who is the Food Inspector of Udhagamandalam Municipality for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sec. 7(ii) and 16(l)(a)(i) read with section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and Rule 24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(2.) The first petitioner has been shown in the complaint as the Chief Executive, Parry Confectionery Limited, Second Line Beach, Madras, while the second petitioner Venugopal has been shown as the vendor at Udhagamandalam. The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector of Udhagamandalam Municipality inspected M/s. Bettiah Chettiar Sons situate at 27/526 Market, Udhagamandalam and found the second petitioner, Venugopal present in the shop. The Food Inspector found hard boiled sugar confectionery orange candy manufactured by Parry and Company kept for sale in one kilo plastic packets. The food inspector purchased from the second petitioner 900 grams of the said food articles, after paying Rs.19.90 as sale consideration. The other formalities prescribed under the Act and Rules were complied with and. a portion of the sample obtained from the second petitioner was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Coimbatore. The sample, on analysis was found to be misbranded. Even at this stage it is better to state that the analyst had received the sample in a "Brown Paper Cover". Inside it were pieces of confectionery wrapped in its original small wrapper bearing the words "Parrys Made By Parry: Confectionery Ltd., Madras". In the remarks column of the report of the Public Analyst, it has been stated that as per rule 24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, if any product of food stuffs are artificially coloured by the addition of coal tar food colours, shall bear a label with the words "Contains permitted colours" in capital letters. It was the opinion of the Public Analyst that the sample contained coal tar colours without the declaration on the label. The prosecution was, therefore, initiated on the sole ground of the absence of the declaratory label, which would be sufficient to christen the food stuff as misbranded.

(3.) In this petition filed under section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the pending proceedings. Mr. V. Nataraj learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the prosecution was not only totally misconceived, but also had. failed to follow the mandatory provisions prescribed by the Act and the Rules. He specifically argues that one kilo packages, which were sold, as such by M/s. Parry and Company to the second petitioner, did contain the labels, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules, but the Food Inspector had chosen to open a sealed packet and take a part for sampling out of it and complain that there was no labelling, even without sending the package itself to the Public Analyst, to offer an opinion. It was his next contention, that there was no averment in the complaint or the appended statement of facts, that the first petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of M/s. Parry and Company Limited and on that sole ground the first petitioner will have to be exonerated. Finally, be contended that the prosecution of the petitioners will be bad without impleading M/s. Parry and Company Limited as one of the accused.