M KARTHIKEYAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR VELLORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No,96 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore and quash the same. The petitioner/accused has filed the above Criminal Original PETITION No.16997 of 2007 to call for the records in C.C.No,96 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore and quash the same.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant is the Food Inspector, III Grade Municipality, Dharapadavedu, Vellore District has filed the complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No,96 of 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore-9, for an alleged offence under Sections 7(ii) and 16(I)(a)(i) r/w. Section 2(ix)(k) and also rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules 1955. THE respondent states that on 29.10.2001, he went to the first accused's shop and took some packets of 100g 'Sakthi Turmeric Powder' for analysis. THE accused had stated that he had purchased the said 'Sakthi Turmeric Powder' from his stockist, Sri Balaji Traders Stockist and Distributors, D-70, Nethaji market, Vellore-632 004. THE respondent has further stated that the label of the manufacturer was in the name of Sakthi Trading Company-6, Mamarathupalayam, Erode - 638 004, Tamil Nadu. Further, the said 'Sakthi Turmeric Powder' was sent via ABT Parcel Service to King Institute for checking the quality of the said 'Sakthi Turmeric Powder'. It is alleged by the respondent that the public analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, King Institute, Chennai-32 had tested the samples and sent a report in 637/2001-2002 dated 14.12.2001 that the said 'Sakthi Turmeric Powder' was 'misbranded'. Consequent to this, the respondent has filed the complaint before the Magistrate.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that there is no allegation in the complaint as regards adulteration in the food article but the only allegation is that the sample is misbranded since the Best before Declaration is not in accordance with the amended rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is alleged by the petitioners that the only error contravening Rule 32(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is the marking on the packages sold and only on this account, the prosecution has been launched. It is alleged by the petitioners that he had followed the directive given by the Joint Director (PFA), State Local Health Authority in the marking of labels and as such they have been unreasonably charged of having violated Rule 32 of the Rules which has compelled the petitioners to approach this Honourable Court.