N.P. SELVARAJ NOMINEE Vs. A. BOOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Accused No. 2 and 3 in C.C.No.336 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram, Namakkal District and they have come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings against them.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant is the Food Inspector of Rasipuram Municipality he has lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned against M/s.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., the first Accused, the second Accused who is the Quality Control Manager of the 1st Accused Company and the third Accused who is an administrative officer of the first Accused Company for manufacturing, distributing and selling the adulterated "7 UP" drink to the public and the Food Inspector. In the complaint, it has been stated by the complainant that as per the powers conferred upon him, he inspected the godown of the accused suspecting adulteration and taken sample from a bottle containing 300 ml of 7 UP which was meant for sale. He purchased six bottles of 300 ml "7 UP" at a cost of Rs.61.74 from the accused and obtained receipt for the same. On the 6 bottles taken by him, divided the samples into three parts, each part containing of two bottles, and he sent one part of 7UP drink to the Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, Palayamkottai enclosing Form VII under Rule 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. After analysing the samples, the Public Analyst has opined that the sample is found to contain a foreign matter (A blue coloured wrapper of VCM into 50 paise freshner) which will affect the quality of the food and hence, it is not the quality demanded by the purchaser and it is to his prejudice. Thus, the sample is adulterated as per Section 2 (ia) (a) and (b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioners on 06.06.2003 under Section 11 (1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction from the Joint Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the respondent preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram against the accused and it has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram on 11.08.2004 in C.C. No.336 of 2004.

(3.) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contended that samples has been taken as per the provisions of law and hence he prays that the petition has to be dismissed.