ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner/accused M/s. Alkem Laboratories Limited for quashing the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Court of Special Magistrate (Prevention of Food Adulteration Act), Bhopal in Criminal Case No.8208/2010, whereby the petitioner M/s. Alkem Laboratories Limited was directed to be arrayed as accused.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus: Adline E. Panna, Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, District-Bhopal inspected the establishment of Valecha enterprises, shop no.11, Patel Market, Bhopal (accused no.1) at about 03:00 p.m. on 03.10.2008. Packed food articles Orange Tammy Sugarless Jelly (hereinafter referred to in this order as "the Jelly") was found displayed therein for sale. Since, the Food Inspector doubted the purity of the food article, she proposes to buy the same for the purpose of testing. The seller accepted the proposal. Accordingly, she purchased three company packed jars of Jelly weighing 350 grams each. Following label was affixed at those jars. "Batch No.-TMJO-8181B, dt. of manufacturing Mfd. ByCachet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. C-582, Rico Industrial AreaBhilwadi-301019, Rajasthan. Mktd. by -Alkem Health Foods (A Division of Alkem Labs Ltd.) Alkem House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013". The seller failed to produce any receipt regarding the purchase of the articles by him from the marketer and stated that he would file the receipt later in the Officer of Food Inspector. Other formalities as per the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act and Rules were observed and the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Local Health Authority, by its letter dated 26.11.2008 informed that the sample of the Jelly was misbranded. Consequently, the letter was sent to Seller Dinesh Valecha for producing food licence and receipt of the purchase of the jelly from any marketer or manufacturer. Pursuant to aforesaid letter, accused Dinesh Valecha produced the food licence and receipt for purchase of Jelly from M/s Alkem Laboratories Limited, 5 Indrapuri Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Indore, (M.P.). Subsequently, the Food Inspector sent a letter to the Local Health Authority, Bhopal and to petitioner M/s Alkem Laboratories Limited, Indore for providing information regarding Manager/Director/Partner or nominee of the laboratories. However, no response was received from either. Consequently, a reminder was sent but to no avail and the original letter was received back in the office. Later, the Food Inspector sent a letter to the Office of the Deputy Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Indore for obtaining information regarding petitioner M/s Alkem Laboratories Limited and for providing food licence of the establishment but no information was received. She also tried to obtain information regarding petitioner M/s Alkem Laboratories Limited from Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Indore; however, she failed to obtain any information. Consequently, a complaint was filed in the Court of JMFC (Municipal Corporation), Bhopal against co-accused Dinesh Valecha for the offence punishable under Sections 2 (ix) (g), 7 (ii) read with section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to in this order as "the Act").

(3.) During the course of the trial, statement of Food Inspector, Adline E. Panna was recorded by the trial Court on 21.09.2011. The prosecution evidence was closed on 18.08.2015 and the case was fixed for defence evidence. Accused Dinesh Valecha examined himself under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. as a witness. On 26.08.2014, accused Dinesh Valecha moved an application under Section 20A of the Act praying that petitioner M/s. Alkem Laboratories Limited be arrayed as accused in the case as they were manufacturer/distributor of the Jelly. Petitioner M/s. Alkem Laboratories Limited appeared before the trial Court through its counsel and challenged the order dated 01.09.2015 by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court.