IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.Nos.2093 & 2094 of 2023 N.Vijayarangam .... Petitioner Vs Union of India, Represented by Chief Health Inspector and Food Inspector, Chennai Egmore Railway Station, Southern Railway, Chennai – 8. .... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the entire proceedings in SMMF No.4 of 2010, pending on the file of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash the same against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Udayachander For Respondents : Dr.D.Simon Central Government Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.M.M.F.No.4 of 2010, on the file of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ripon Building, Chennai. The petitioner is arrayed as A3.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows :

On 20.04.2010, the respondent/complainant inspected the Soda Water Stall at Platform Nos.1 & 2 and took sample of “Amutham Orange Soft Drink”, following the procedures contemplated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). One part of sealed sample packet was sent to Government Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, King Institute Campus, Guindy, Chennai on 21.04.2010 and Analysis was done between 06.05.2010 to 12.05.2010 ; public Analyst Report was made ready on 19.05.2010. In the label, date of manufacture is mentioned as 19.04.2010 and the best before 27.04.2010. Based on the Analyst's Report, adulteration complaint has been filed against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complainant had seized the samples on 20.04.2010, but the samples were analyzed only between 06.05.2010 and 12.05.2010 nearly after one month from the date of seizure, which is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and would vitiate the entire proceedings. The food item would become contaminated after the period of expiry. But, in the present case, the samples were kept for nearly 20 days and thereafter, analysed, which cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashment. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parakh Foods Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008 (4) SCC 584).

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that on 20.04.2010, the respondent visited the Soda Water Stall at Platform Nos. 1 & 2 and took samples of “Amutham Orange Soft Drink”. One part of the sealed sample packet was sent to Government Analyst, on 21.04.2010 and Analysis was done between 06.05.2010 to 12.05.2010. Based on the Analyst's Report, adulteration complaint had been filed against the petitioner. The contentions of the petitioner that, since analysis was not done before 27.04.2010, the shelf-life period, would have got expired and the Analysis Report, cannot be taken into account, is concerned, if such contenction is to be accepted, no complaint can be filed against any individual selling adulteration product by fixing a short shelf-life period for their convenience. The shelf-life period has to be considered only for the purpose of consumption and not for doing analysis. Further, in the label, it is not declared as the product contains “permitted synthetic food colour”, “Added flavours” and it gives a false and misleading impression to the consumer about the product as it contains fruit by use of words and pictorial representation. Further, in this case, the complaint had been filed on 09.08.2010 and cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court and the petitioner has to prove his case only by adducing evidence before the Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials availabl