M Y JAGADESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the accused in S.T.C.No.12 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, Anantapur District. The petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (2), 7 (1) and 2 (12) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The Food Inspector seized the sealed ghee packets weighing 200 grams each from the firm of the accused and after analysis, the ghee was found adulterated, therefore, the accused who are the partners of a super bazaar were prosecuted for the offences mentioned above. In the complaint, there is a mention that the Food Inspector purchased three ghee packets containing 200 grams each described on the label as Mathura Ghee. During the taking of the samples, the first petitioner informed the Food Inspector that Mathura Ghee 200 Grams packets were purchased from M/s Anuradha Enterprises, Hindupur and produced the Xerox copy of the bill covered by Ex.4.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the ghee was contained in a sealed packet prepared by Madhura Dairy Limited, Vijayawada and distributed by Madhura Enterprises, the accused did not know the contents of the. food article under the bona fide impression that he purchased the packets for sale, therefore, they are not liable to be prosecuted for the said offences. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in P.UNNIKRISHNAN v. FOOD INSPECTOR, PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY, AIR 1995 SC 1983 wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the offence under the Act, observed that the accused sold food article in sealed tins purchased from the representative of a firm with a bill having warranty and the firm is located at a distance of 200 KMs away from the shop of the accused, therefore, no knowledge about non-existence of the firm could be attributed to accused. The accused sold the food article in the same manner and condition in which it was purchased by him. The accused in turn sold the article in the same manner to the Food Inspector, therefore, the accused is entitled for discharge.