GANGAIAHNAIDU RAMA KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these criminal petitions are filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in different Calendar Cases on the file of the Courts of the Judicial First Class Magistrates pending against them for the offences under Sections 2(ia)(l) and 7(1) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act) and punishable under Sections 16(c)(a)(i) of the Act and The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules')

(2.) Various grounds have been raised to quash the prosecution contending that the rights conferred on the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act has become illusory, frustrated and lost. The right under Section 13(2) of the Act is a guaranteed right to the accused. The shelf life of the beverage is six months from the date of package and as there is a label on the package stating that it is to be used best before six months, the beverage in question will not retain the specific qualities and will not give the true and correct values. Hence the complaint ought not to have been filed. The preservative was not added, which is evident from the Public Analyst report. The impleading of other accused who are not in charge or responsible to the conduct of the business is illegal and mala fide. In some of the cases as required under law, a nominee was appointed and therefore, the nominee is alone liable for prosecution but not the other Directors. It is stated that the mere presence of suspended particles and the rusting of crown cork would not amount to adulteration of the beverage. Rusting of the crown cork cannot be attributed to the manufacturer, as it is only rust proof crown cork that is used to seal the bottle not only here but elsewhere in the country and worldwide. It may be due to mishandling by the retailer/vendor by which the manufacturer cannot be made as accused. The nature of suspended particles is not mentioned in the Analyst report. It is stated that the learned Magistrates have mechanically taken cognizance of the complaints without looking into their contents and the documents filed along with the complaints. Therefore, the CCs are liable to be quashed.

(3.) The Food Inspector inspected the shops of the first accused, who are liable for all the acts and omissions committed during the course of the business. The other accused in various cases either the Assistant General Managers or Managers or in charge of the business of the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited, are responsible for the conduct of the business of the said company. Thus, the persons who are in charge of the business, the Directors of the company and the persons who are responsible for the conduct of the business for all acts and omissions committed during the course of the business of the said company are also made as accused in the inception. It is stated that the Food Inspectors purchased the sealed bottles of Coca Cola, Thums Up, Limca, Fanta, Sprite, Kinley Club Soda, Kinley pure drinking water etc, from the vendors, which are kept for sale for human consumption, which are manufactured, marketed and supplied by the said company. They collected the samples of the said sealed sweetened carbonated beverages for analysis to check whether the above said sealed sweetened carbonated beverages are adulterated as contemplated under sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 10 of the Act and accordingly served notices in Form VI to the first accused. The Food Inspectors divided the sample collected into three equal parts. After purchasing the required samples in the presence of the panch witnesses one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad and also a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was sent to the Public Analyst. The remaining two parts of the sample parts and two copies of the memorandum of Form VII was sent in the sealed packets to the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst after conducting due analysis of sample opined that the sample was adulterated as it contains suspended particles etc. upon which the complaints have been filed against the accused for commission of offences under the relevant sections of the Act.