J. LOHANI Vs. STATE OF T.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is 2nd accused among the three accused in CC.No.38 of 2016 outcome of the private complaint under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Act') of the 2nd respondent Food Safety Inspector, Nizamabad (concerned) from which the learned I Metropolitan Magistrate, Municipal Court, Hyderabad, taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(vii), Sec.26(2)(i) of the Act r/w.Regulations 2, 3,6 of the Act punishable under Section 59 (ii) of the Act.

(2.) Summoning at the post cognizance stage, the petitioners/accused appeared and so far as the petitioner/A2 concerned, moved the trial Court Magistrate under Section 239 Cr.P.C. by filing an application seeking to discharge for no ground to frame charge in saying there is no sustainable specific accusation for the array of him of any role to make him vicariously liable along with any of the other accused. That petition was ended in dismissal by the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.187/2017 by the learned Magistrate with observation particularly from paras 8 to 11. In so far as the present averment concerned, leave about invoking of section 42(iii) of the Act, how far to benefit, in the absence of showing prejudice caused be made a ground for discharge.

(3.) That he is a stranger but for Director of A3 entity and there is no specific allegation is the contention in seeking to discharge concerned, the observation is it is a matter to be decided after full-fledged trial and premature to go into and express any opinion in discharge.