Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 2491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
T.V. Nalawade, J.
Aravind Shankar Manegaonkar (Proprietor) – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application Nos. 230, 231, 960 of 2012
Decided On : 05-11-2014
For the Appellant :Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.K. Tambe, A.P.P.
The court emphasized the strict liability for contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and highlighted the limitations of relying on delay in filing complaints and circulars to seek relief.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Criminal Cases - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m), 7(v), Rule 55 - The court discussed the contravention of provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the influence of strict liability for contravention on the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought relief for quashing criminal cases filed against them under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The cases involved contravention of provisions related to adulterated and misbranded food items, and the applicants argued that delay in filing the complaints deprived them of the opportunity to exercise their rights under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that contravention of the Act and Rules does not require proof of 'mens rea' and that delay in filing the complaints did not automatically render the samples unfit for testing. The court also criticized a circular issued by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, and dismissed the applicants' reliance on reported cases to support their arguments.
Issues: Delay in filing complaints, contravention of provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and reliance on circular and reported cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that contravention of the Act and Rules does not require proof of 'mens rea' and that delay in filing complaints does not automatically render samples unfit for testing. The court also highlighted the limitations of relying on circulars and reported cases to support legal arguments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all three proceedings and directed the Registrar Judicial to send a copy of the order to the concerned department of the State Government.
1. All the three proceedings are filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). In all the proceedings reliefs are claimed for quashing of the criminal cases filed against the applicants under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The prayer for setting aside the order of issue process is also made. The first proceeding is filed in respect of R.C.C. No. 136/1999, presently pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna. The second proceeding is filed in respect of R.C.C. No. 69/1998 presently pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Shripur, Dhule and the third proceeding is filed in respect of proceeding bearing No. 380/2010 (Old R.C.C. No. 1735/2001), presently pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad. Both the sides are heard.
2. In the first case, it is contended by the complainant that the applicant/accused was a dealer, agent of one company by name Corn Products at the relevant time and his work involved storing and supplying mixed fruit jam, food item of the company. He had supplied the product to accused No. 1 from where samples were collected by the complainant. Three samples were collected on 19.12.1996 and they were closed glass bottles of 500 grams each. The complainant, Food Inspector, sent one sample to Public Analyst on 20.12.1996. The complainant received report of Analyst, which is to the effect that the sample contains preservative sulfur dioxide and its quantity is 54.65 parts per million (ppm) as against its permitted quantity of 40 ppm. The complaint is filed for contravention of provisions of sections 7(i) r/w. 2(ia)(a), section 2(ia)(m), 7(v) and Rule 55 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the contravention is punishable under sections 16 and 17 of the Act.
3. The second proceeding is in respect of complaint filed against the applicant, who is a vendor and proprietor of M/s. 4 Gupta Trading Company. On 31.1.1997, the complainant visited the shop of the applicant and purchased 3 closed bottles of 500 grams each of Orange Marmalade (Kissan). The complainant sent one of the samples on 1.2.1997 to Public Analyst. The report of Analyst was received by complainant on 28.2.1997. The report is to the effect that there is adulteration as the quantity of preservative sulfur dioxide is 68.5 ppm as against permissible quantity of 40 ppm. The complaint is filed for the contravention of similar provisions which are mentioned in the aforesaid complaint and the contravention is punishable under sections 16 and 17 of the Act.
4. The applicant from the third proceeding is manufacturer of food article Marvo cream. On 13.4.1999 the complainant purchased 500 grams of MARVO cream from 14 k.g. packed tin. The tin was having label and the description of the food article which was present on the label was noted in Form No. VI. Three samples were prepared from this quantity purchased by the Food Inspector. On 15.4.1999 the complainant sent one sample for analysis. The report of Public Analyst was received on 14.5.1999 and it is to the effect that the food article is misbranded. It is reported that the food article is of 'Vanaspati' and not of 'cream' as shown on the label. The report is also given 5 to the effect that the sample does not conform the standards of cream. The complaint is filed for contravention of the provisions of section 7(ii) r/w. sections 2(ix)(c), 2(ix)(e) and section 2(ix)(k) which is punishable under sections 16 and 17 of the Act. The applicant/accused No. 7 is manufacturer and so, the complaint is filed in respect of manufacture of such food article and also for stock and sell.
5. In the first two proceedings, the learned counsel for the applicants argued that the delay was caused in filing the complaint and the complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf life period of the food articles and so, there was no compliance of provisions of section 13(2) of the
