SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN
M/S.TEJ RAM DHARAM PAUL PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
FOOD SAFETY OFFICER – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on :12.08.204 Pronounced on :03.09.2024 Coram THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Crl.O.P.No.1242 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.684 & 688 of 2023

1.M/s TEJ RAM DHARMAN PAUL PVT LTD.

(Manufacture Company)

Rep by Mr.ManmohankumarPunla, (Director)

House No.4, Ground Floor, BLK-JP, Pitampura, New Delhi 110 034.

2.Mr.ManmohankumarPunia (Manufacture/Director)

M/s TEJ RAM DHARMAN PAUL PVT LTD.

House No.4, Ground Floor, BLK-JP, Pitampura, New Delhi 110 034.

3.Mr.Deepaksharma (Manufacture/Director)

M/s TEJ RAM DHARMAN PAUL PVT LTD.

House No.4, Ground Floor, BLK-JP, Pitampura, New Delhi 110 034. .. Petitioners /versus/

FOOD SARFETY OFFICER, No.219, Race Course Road, Coimbatore 641 018. .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to in the case S.T.C.No.3745 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits.

For Petitioners :Mr.KJayabalan For Respondent :Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

------

ORDER The complaint by the Food Safety Officer, Coimbatore, against one Raj Purohith Dinesh, the whole seller/stockiest of tobacco product along with the manufacturing company and its Directors, was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore for the offences under Sections

58 and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006.

2. The petitioners herein are the manufacturing company and its Directors. According to the petitioners, the tobacco products, which alleged to have been seized from the premises of the first accused, Raj Purohith Dinesh, on 13.11.2019, is not a food product to fall under the purview of Food Safety Act. Cool Lip Filter Tabbaq (pre-packed condition) is a tobacco produced covered under The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (in short "COTPA Act 2003"). The first petitioner company, which is duly registered under the Companies Act holds valid license for manufacturing tobacco product under the name and style of M/s Tej Ram Dharam Paul Pvt. Ltd. It has obtained certificate from Central Board of Excise and Customs. The product was not sold by the petitioners herein, but it was stocked and sold by the first accused, by name Raj Purohith Dinesh, who alleged to have been sold the product in his rented premises at 212, HRK Line, R.G.Street, Coimbatore. Ban on the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of gutkha, pan masala, flavoured tobacco and other such product, in the National capital has been quashed by the Delhi High Court in a batch of writ petitions. The manufacturing of tobacco products in Delhi is not prohibited. The first accused had procured the tobacco product, which are manufactured at Delhi and brought it to Tamil Nadu. Without establishing nexus between the manufacturer and the stockist, the complainant cannot prosecute the petitioners, who are the manufacturer and directors of the company. The complaint does not reveal that the petitioners supplied the seized product to the first accused. Without producing any material with regard to the alleged sale and supply of materials by A2, A3 and A4 to A1, the complaint cannot be sustained and it amounts to abuse of process of law.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that on 13.11.2019, on a specific information, a team of officers of Food Safety Department conducted a search of the premises rented out to Raj Purohith Dinesh. 54 Kg of Cool Lip Filter Tabbaq was recovered from the said premises. The first accused Raj Purohith Dinesh confessed that he purchased the prohibited tobacco product through middle man and stored it to sell in retail. He did not possess any receipt. The sample drawn from the seized tobacco product was sent to the State Laboratory. On 04.01.2020 the opinion of the expert received, which opined as follows:-

Opinion I am of the opinion that the said sample is unsafe under Section 3(1)(zz) of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top