A PAVANI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is A-6 in C.C. No.324 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalli. She was charged for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(1), 7(1) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) A-1 is the dealer and A-6 is the distributor. A-3, A-4 and A-5 are the manufactures of MTR Instant Gulab Jamun Mix. The Food Inspector visited the shop of A-l and found 10 sealed packets of Gulab Jamun Mix by suspecting that they are adulterated. He purchased three samples and after analysis, the analyst reported that they are adulterated. When the Food Inspector ascertained from A-l as to from whom he purchased the packets, A-l replied that he purchased the packets from A-6. When A-6 was questioned, she informed that there was an invoice issued by MTR Foods Limited for supply of the MTR Instant Gulab Jamun Mix, therefore, the Food Inspector filed a complaint against all the accused mentioning that they are responsible for the adulteration of the food.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the Gulab Jamun Mix was contained in a sealed packet prepared by MTR Foods Limited, the accused did not know the contents of the food article under the bona fide impression that she purchased the packets for sale, therefore, she is 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.