LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-207

MANISH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 12, 2014
MANISH Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is reported to be dead. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

(2.) The case in brief is that on 15th January, 2010, Food Inspector of Respondent No. 1 went to the shop of the Applicant and took three samples of "Sangam Pure Ghee" which was in sealed Plastic Jars each of 904 gms. As per Section 14A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "Act of 1954"), the name of manufacturer along with invoice was given to Respondent No. 1. In July, 2010, Applicant received notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, after complaint No. 3803 (should be 3804) of 2010 (later on S.C.C. No. 200 of 2010) was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. The matter is now pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Corporation Court) Aurangabad. This Application was filed seeking quashment of the process issued in the matter as regards the present Applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is admittedly a retailer, as can be seen from the complaint itself, copy of which is filed at Exhibit B. Learned counsel referred to Para 6 of the complaint to say that three packets of Ghee having the name "Sangam Pure Ghee" in sealed jars were seized from the Applicant. Learned counsel argued that as per Section 19(2) of the Act of 1954, the Applicant is protected as invoice vide which the Applicant purchased the articles is also an admitted fact looking to Para 16 of the complaint. Learned counsel filed copy of the Panchnama and invoice also on record to show that Ghee in sealed jars was purchased from Respondent No. 2, and the same was seized. Learned counsel referred to the Proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1954 to submit that the invoice admittedly shown by the Applicant to the Food Inspector, protected him as it gives warranty of the goods and the offence, if any, could be attributed only to Respondent No. 2.