K GANESAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR PERIYAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who have been arrayed as A1 to A5, are facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 16(1)(i) r/w. 7(ii) and Section 2(ix) (a) and (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 32(a) of the Prevention of Adulteration Rules, 1955, on the allegation of sample viz., "SAKTHI KULAMBU CHILLI POWDER" seized from the accused, said to be misbranded as per the Analyst's Report and as such, the package of the sample is not in accordance with Rule 32(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and they have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them in S.T.C.No.156 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

(2.) A-1 is the salesman of a Grocery shop and A-2 is the owner and licensee of the Grocery shop ; A-3 is the dealer ; A-4 is the nominee of the manufacturer ; A-5 is the manufacturer of the food article, namely, "SAKTHI KULAMBU CHILLI POWDER".

(3.) MR. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the allegations contained in the impugned complaint do not disclose the ingredients of the contravention or violation under Sections 16(1)(i) r/w. 7(ii) and Section 2(ix) (a) and (k) of the Act and Rule 32(a) of the Rules. It is submitted that the Food Inspector/the respondent herein merely reproduced the opinion of the Public Analyst as per the report stating that the sample is found to be misbranded since it is not labelled in accordance with the requirement of Section 2(ix)(a) of the Act and Rule 32(a) of the Rules and filed the impugned complaint. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the Food Inspector taken the sample, namely, "SAKTHI KULAMBU CHILLI POWDER" containing in 200 gms packets and the said six packets containing each 200 gms clearly labeled as "SAKTHI KULAMBU CHILLI POWDER" and on the back side of the cover of the packet the ingredients of the "SAKTHI KULAMBU CHILLI POWDER" also stated both in English and in Tamil and as such the label and the declaration of the ingredients not at all stated to be a imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the "SAKTHI KULAMBU CHILLI POWDER" packets plainly and conspicuously labelled indicating its true character and as such it cannot be stated that the sample, viz., "SAKTHI KULAMBU CHILLI POWDER" is a misbranded one as per the definition under Section 2(ix)(a) of the Act. Therefore, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the respondent/Food Inspector initiated the prosecution against the petitioner arbitrarily and mechanically without any application of mind and the allegations contained in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners and as such the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed.