T SRIHARI LTD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri E.Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/complainant respectively in both these Criminal Petitions.

(2.) In view of the fact that the principal ground raised praying for quashing of proceedings in both these criminal petitions being the same, though in Crl.P.No.1426/2003 certain additional grounds also had been raised, for the purpose of convenience, both these Criminal Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order.

(3.) Sri E.Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in both these Criminal Petitions would maintain that a mere declaration that the accused is a marketer may not be sufficient to prosecute the marketing agency unless there is a connecting link between the product and the marketer and in the absence of the same, the marketing agency cannot be held liable for the food product being adulterated and hence the prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act") or the Rules framed thereunder cannot be maintained. The learned Senior Counsel in all fairness would maintain that it may be that at the appropriate stage the concerned learned Magistrate may invoke the provisions of Section 20-A of the Act referred to supra. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.