Andhra High Court
Andhra High Court
P.Gopalakrishna &Amp; Another vs The State Of A.P., Through Food ... on 28 March, 2011
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6093 of 2008
28-03-2011
P.Gopalakrishna & Another
The State of A.P., Through Food Inspector, Vizianagaram Dist., Rep. By the Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Petitioner: C.Praveen Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
:ORDER:
This is an application to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 67 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Bobbili, registered under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the "Act")
The facts of the case in nutshell reads as follows:
The petitioners are Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No. 67 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili. The Food Inspector, Vizianagaram Division-III filed a complaint under
Section 30 read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case of the complainant is that on
10.10.2007, the Food Inspector along with his staff inspected the shop of accused No.1 and purchased six
sealed packets of Priya chilli powder from accused No.1. After following the due procedure, the Food
Inspector sent the sample to Public Analyst for analysis and the analyst opined that the sample does not
confirm to the standard of non-volatile ether extract and therefore, it was adulterated. After filing of the
complaint, the petitioners filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
to send the 2nd sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and report and the said petition was
allowed and the 2nd sample was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune for analysis. By his
report dated 8.7.2008, the Director, Central Food Laboratory opined that the sample confirmed to the
standards of chillies and capsicum (Lal Mirchi) powder as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules.
Pursuant to the said report, the petitioner filed an application Criminal M.P.No. 5071 of 2008 to discharge the
accused or dismiss the complaint. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that no accused in a
complaint case can be discharged after taking cognizance. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Petition is
filed. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings and whether
the accused are entitled for discharge? It is an admitted fact that Criminal M.P.No. 5071 of 2008 in C.C.No.
67 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The learned Magistrate
after enquiry dismissed the petition under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. observing that no accused in a complaint
case can be discharged after taking cognizance by the Court and the Court found no merits in the petition. It is
noted supra that the petitioners filed petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. Section 227 of
Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "Discharge:- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the
documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution this
behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
Section 258 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
P.Gopalakrishna &Amp; Another vs The State Of A.P., Through Food ... on 28 March, 2011
Indian Kanoon - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1641537/ 1"Power to stop proceedings in certain cases:- In any, summons that case instituted otherwise than upon
complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any
other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without
pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal
witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case release, the accused,
and such release shall have the effect of discharge."
The above said petition under Section 227 was filed by the petitioners after filing the charge sheet in C.C.No.
67 of 2008. The petitioners admittedly filed application under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act requesting the Court to send the 2nd sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune
for report. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate was pleased to send the 2nd sample to the Central
Food Laboratory, Pune for analysis and the Director, Central Food Laboratory was pleased to analyse the 2nd
sample as ordered by the Court and sent his report of analysis. The certificate of analysis issued by the
Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune reveals that the sample confirms to the standards of chillies and
capsicum (Lal Mirchi) power as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules, 1955. Under Section 13(5) of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, certificate of analysis issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory
will supersedes the certificate issued by the Public Analyst. As such, the certificate of analysis issued by the
Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune will prevail the certificate issued by the Public Analyst consequently,
the report of the Public Analyst is of no avail and cannot be considered for any purpose, as the report of the
Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune reveals that the sample confirmed to the standards of chillies and
capsicum (Lal Mirchi) power as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules, 1955, the case filed by the
complainant is of no material under law. The counsel also draw the attention to a decision reported in K.M.
MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA1 and urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that
Magistrate may drop the proceedings if satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence
for which the accused could be tried. It was further observed that no specific provision is required for
Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The fact that the process has already been issued is
no bar to drop the proceedings, if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the
accused. It was also observed by the Bombay High Court in the decision rendered and reported in BABURAO
HARI PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARARASHTRA2 states "the discharge of accused and a right to
ask for discharge is available to accused at any stage of trial". It was further observed by the Bombay
High Court in the decision rendered and reported in MURLIDHAR DULLABHDAS WANI Vs. THE STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA3 that "Director's certificate showing no adulteration, the accused is to be
discharged applying provisions of Cr.P.C. even in absence of such provisions in the Act by virtue of Section
4(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the above said circumstances of the case and also in view of the certificate of
analysis issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, supersedes the report of the public analyst, no
offence shall be made out against the petitioners-accused. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No. 67 of 2008 on
the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
?1 1992 CRL.L.J. 3779
2 1987 CRL.L.J. 584
P.Gopalakrishna &Amp; Another vs The State Of A.P., Through Food ... on 28 March, 2011
