Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 628
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
M/s. Amway India Enterprises Regd. Office at New Delhi & Others
Versus
State of A.P., rep. by Food Inspector Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
Crl.P. No.591 of 2008
Decided on : 20-07-2010
For the Petitioners:S. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 14(A), 20(1) and 13 - Criminal Petition has been filed – Course of Inspection – Food inspection - During the course of inspection the Food Inspector found numbers Pack Health Drinks in the business premises disclosed to the Food Inspector that the said packets are manufactured Agro Foods Plot Sector-A Manchemshwar Industrial Estate - Food Inspector purchased - Enterprises for being sent for analysis, by paying its cost to the Area Manager and obtained cash receipt from him - He served Form Notice on Accused informing him the purpose of purchase of sample packets of Amway Madrid Safed for being sent to Public Analyst for analysis - sample in sealed package along with two copies of memorandum in Form VII with the Assistant Food Controller & Local for safe custody and obtained acknowledgment - Public Analyst tested the sample and opined that the sample contains Class II Preservative which is not declared on the label and is therefore adulterated - Food Inspector received a Corrigendum to the Public - Court am of the opinion that the sample contains Class Preservative which is not declared on the label and is therefore Misbranded - After obtaining necessary written consent under Section - Petitioners appeared before the Court below and filed an application under Section of the Act for referring the 2nd sample to the Central Food Laboratory - Application was allowed and the 2nd sample was referred to Central Food Laboratory sample was subjected to examination by the Central Food – Held, Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory tested the samples in accordance - Petitioners that item has been omitted and therefore no credence can be given to the report submitted by the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory does not hold water and accordingly - next submission of the learned counsel is that is a permissible under Rules and the sample be categorized as misbranded - Report of the Public Analyst is that the sample is misbranded - Reason for classifying the item as misbranded is that though it contains which is a permissible color - Label affixed to the soft drink seized from the premises India Enterprises - Permissible colour under the Rules - But the label should contain the name of food - That why the Public Analyst treated the sample as a misbranded one - Under Section of the Act any person who sells a misbranded article of food is liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees - that the petitioners failed to make any valid ground for quashing the proceedings on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate Reddy District - Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
This Criminal Petition has been filed by A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District to quash the proceedings therein.
2(a). T.Vijaya Kumar, Food Inspector, Division-II, Ranga Reddy District inspected the premises of M/s.Amway India Enterprises, Susheela Hall, 8-166, Doctors Colony, L.B.Nagar on 16.11.2006 and found Sandeep Prakash at the business premises. During the course of inspection, the Food Inspector found 72 numbers of Tetra Pack Health Drinks in the business premises. T.Sandeep Prakash disclosed to the Food Inspector that the said packets are “Amway Madrid Safed Musli (Apple) drinks” manufactured by M/s.Mamta Agro Foods, Plot A/57, Sector-A, Manchemshwar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751 010, Orissa, and they are for sale to public for human consumption. The packets contain an identical label declaration as “Ingredients: Water, Sugar, Safed Muli, Apple Juice concentrate and citric acid; contains permitted synthetic food colour and added flavor, Mfg.,Aug 06C; `The worlds best Health Drink’ ”.
(b). The Food Inspector purchased 6 sealed packets of 200 ml quantity from the business premises of M/s. Amway India Enterprises for being sent for analysis, by paying Rs.120/- towards its cost to the Area Manager-Sandeep Prakash and obtained cash receipt from him. He served Form No.VI Notice on Accused No.1-Sandeep Prakash informing him the purpose of purchase of sample packets of Amway Madrid Safed Musli (Apple), i.e., for being sent to Public Analyst for analysis. The Food Inspector divided the said sample into three equal parts, (each part consisting of two packets (2X200ml)) and sealed the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for brevity, “the 1955 Rules”). On the next day, i.e., on 17.11.2006, he submitted one part of the sample along with memorandum in Form VII for analysis to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad under intimation to Local (Health) Authority and obtained acknowledgment. On the same day, he deposited the remaining two parts of the sample in sealed package along with two copies of memorandum in Form VII with the Assistant Food Controller & Local (Health) Authority, Zone-VI, Hyderabad for safe custody and obtained acknowledgment. Thereafter, he addressed a letter along with Form-VI Notice under Section 14(A) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), as per the label declaration found on the sealed packets of Amway Madrid Safed Musli (Apple), to M/s.Mamta Agro Foods, Plot A/57, Sector-A, Mancheshwar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751 010, Orissa.
(c). The Public Analyst tested the sample and opined that “the sample contains Class II Preservative which is not declared on the label and is therefore adulterated. The Food Inspector received a Corrigendum to the Public Analyst Report substituting the opinion as “I am of the opinion that the sample contains Class II Preservative which is not declared on the label and is therefore Misbranded”. After obtaining necessary written consent under Section 20(1) of the Act from Director and State Food (Health) Authority, the Food Inspector filed a complaint before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
(d) The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.8 of 2007. The petitioners appeared before the Court below and filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for referring the 2nd sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The said application was allowed and the 2nd sample was referred to Central Food Laboratory. The sample was subjected to examination by the Central Food Laboratory and as per the report of the Central Food Laboratory, the product contains synthetic food colour viz., Ponceau 4R contravening Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and the label “Safed Musli reinvigorates your mind and body” suggests that the fo
