VIVEK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A.2 and A.3 in C.C. No. 32 of 2006 on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed for the offences under Sections 2 (ia)(m) and 7(i) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) On 24-7-2004 at about 2 p.m. the Food Inspector, Flying Squad at Hyderabad visited the shop of the second petitioner at Somajiguda. The Food Inspector notices Corn-flour (Corn-meal) in a sealed polythene bag of 5 kgs. On enquiry, A. 1 disclosed that it was kept for using in making pizzas for human consumption. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of Corn-flour for making it three samples and one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, and the analyst after testing the sample gave an opinion that the sample does not conform to the standards of total ash and alcoholic acidity and it is, therefore, adulterated. After receipt of the Analyst report, a complaint was filed against the petitioners and other accused. Being aggrieved by the prosecution, the petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C,

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the product 'Corn-meal' was meant for preparation of pizzas being manufactured and packed by the same company and it is not for sale. He further contends that as the product 'Corn-meal' is not one of the items for which the standard has been prescribed under the Act, the Food Inspector is not entitled to say that Cornmeal is equivalent to Corn-flour, and therefore, it is adulterated. He further contends that the Corn-meal is not meant for sale and it is specially prepared for Domino's Pizza, which is their same product for human consumption and as no standard has been prescribed for Corn-meal in the Act, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. Further, the learned counsel filed a copy of the label where the product is described as Corn-meal and it is further mentioned that it is not for sale and specially packed for preparation of pizzas by the second petitioner. In support of his contention that the prosecution cannot be maintained against the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on some judgments.