HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.753 of 2025

ORDER :

Challenging the order, dated 25.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.832 of 2025 in Cr.No.1069 of 2025 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal (for short ‘trial Court’), this Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.M.Dinesh Goud, learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company is incorporated under the provision of company’s Act 2013 and engaged in the business of transportation, distribution and other logistic solutions operating under the name and style of “Elastic Run”. In furtherance of its business operations, petitioner’s company has taken a warehouse building on lease situated at Devarayamjal village. In the course of its business the petitioner company has stored the properties in its warehouse for the purpose of distribution to retailers on their demand.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has stored a list of 18 items, out of which 14 and 15 were particularly kept aside from the remaining goods and was kept separately in the said warehouse in a separate place, earmarked for returning to its vendors as the same had expired. While the matter stood thus, Police, Pet Basheerabad, on 01.07.2025 raided the warehouse of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner company is selling expired goods and without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner the police have seized the goods in the warehouse alleging that the goods do not have expiry dates and as such have expired and filed an FIR vide No.1069 of 2025. Subsequently a petition under section 451 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for return of goods before the trial Court, but the learned Magistrate dismissed the same vide impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the goods which were seized from the warehouse are perishable in nature and there is every chance of decay. Further the fact that when the goods were seized from the warehouse of the petitioner, there would be an inventory of the same and by returning the property to the petitioner, there would be no hindrance to the investigation in any manner. But the trial Court failed to take into consideration of the said facts and dismissed the petition. It is further submitted that if the seized goods, if not handed over to the petitioner, the items will perish and will not be of any value/use to the petitioner herein, causing irreparable damage to the petitioner.

6. He further submitted that in view of mention of expiry dates on the goods there are some exemptions from certain labeling requirements as per Food Safety and Standards (Labellilng and Display) Regulations, 2020 which reads as under: 8. Exemptions from certain labeling requirements-

(1) Where the surface area of the package is not more than

100 square centimeters, the label of such package shall be exempted from the requirements of list of ingredients, Lot number or batch number or code number, nutritional information, labeling of irradiated food, declaration of food additives, license number and logo the name and complete address of the importer and instructions for use, but these information shall be given on the multi-unit packages.

2[(1) (a) The ‘date of manufacture’ and Use by date or expiry date’ may not be required to be mentioned on the package having surface area of less than thirty square centimeters but this information shall be given on the multi-unit packages]

Therefore, in the case of small units, each and every unit will not be given details of manufacturing and expiry dates.

7. He submits that among the seized stock, there are stocks of edible products such as candies and toffees for sale in view of the ensuing festival