AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G. Deshpande, J.—Heard Mr. Mundargi for the petitioners, Mr. Malpathak for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. I.S. Thakur, A.P.P. for the State - respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
All these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the P.F.A. Act").
Three complaints were filed by the respondent No. 1 in respect of three samples of groundnut oil taken from the petitioners, and since common question is involved in all these petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
Copy of the complaint is at Exhibit ''M'' page 41 of the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1291 of 1998. According to the respondent No. 1, who is the complainant, a complaint was lodged by Raj Oil Mills regarding unauthorised refilling of guinea brand groundnut oil by Oswal Trading Company, Thane - respondent No. 2 to the complainant. The complainant, therefore visited canteen No. 1 in the premises of Voltas Limited petitioner No. 1 at Pokhran Road, Thane along with some independent witnesses. Petitioner No. 2 is a licensee and vendor of the canteen No. 1 of Voltas limited -petitioner No. 1. The complainant disclosed identity and thereafter it was the petitioner No. 2 who showed suspected tins of groundnut oil sealed by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 broke the seal of the tins and gave custody of the suspected groundnut oil to the complainant. The complainant made three lots of the said tins. Thereafter, complainant demanded and purchased 750 grams of groundnut oil from each of the three samples, sealed it according to the provisions of P.F.A. Act, send the samples for chemical analysis and after receiving the report, filed the complaint under Sections 2(ia)(a)(b), 2(ia)(c) and 2(ia)(m) of P.F.A. Act against the petitioner and respondent No. 2.
It was urged by Mr. Mundargi that all these three prosecutions at the instance of the respondent No. 1 were totally misuse of the process of the Court and all these three complaints were liable to be quashed with heavy cost upon the respondent No. 1. He pointed out that the petitioner No. 2 was a licensee, running a canteen at Voltas Limited, Thane and the canteen was being run for the staff working in the Voltas Limited - petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioner No. 2 he was purchasing guinea brand groundnut oil from the respondent No. 2 since long and on 22.5.1992 50 tins of 15 kgs. of guinea brand groundnut oil were purchased from the respondent No. 2. However, the petitioner No. 2 after inspection and chemical analysis, found that oil in 28 tins was adulterated groundnut oil and therefore a letter was written to the respondent No. 2 on behalf of Voltas Limited, Thane Works, and copy thereof was sent to M/s. Raj Oil Mills, Andheri, who was the manufacturer of the guinea brand groundnut oil. Mr. Mundargi also pointed out that after suspecting that 28 tins of oil contained adulterated oil. M/s. Voltas Limited petitioner No. 1 sent the samples for analysis to the Municipal Laboratory of M.C.G.B. and thereafter again wrote to the manufacturer, Raj Oil Mills by their letter dated 26.5.1992 about the oil being adulterated. A request was also made to Raj Oil Mills that they should depute their technical representative to check the oil which were confiscated and retained for further action at the instance of Voltas Limited -petitioner No. 1.
The record of the petition also shows that thereafter Raj Oil Mills lodged a complaint to the Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration on 1.6.1992 disclosing therein that the respondent No. 2 was indulging in nefarious activities and they were filling adulterated groundnut oil by refilling old tins. In this complaint to the Commissioner, Drug & Administration Raj Oil Mills also informed that they had received a complaint from Voltas Limited - petitioner No. 1 about 28 tins containing adulterated groundnut oil and that representative of Raj Oil Mills found after verification that out of the 50 tins supplied by respondent No. 2, 28 tins were old refilled tins of spurious quality.
The learned A.P.P. admitted that it was after this complaint from Raj Oil Mills dated 1.6.1992 that the respondent No. 1 complainant visited the premises and canteen of the petitioners on 22.6.1992 and thereafter took samples which were found to be samples of groundnut oil, which were subsequently found out not according to the specifications prescribed under the P.F.A. Act.
In this background, it was submitted by Mr. Mundargi that there are no grounds whatsoever to prosecute the petitioners because it was the petitioner No. 2 through Voltas Limited who has set the law in motion. It was the petitioner No. 2 through Voltas Limited who found that the oil supplied by respondent No. 2 was adulterated, it was Voltas Limited petitioner No. 1 who had undertaken the chemical analysis of the said tins through the Municipal Laboratory of M.C.G.B. It was the petitioner No. 2 through Voltas Limited - Petitioner No. 1 who complained to the manufacturer Raj Oil Mills and it was the petitioner No. 2 through Voltas Limited - petitioner No. 1 who again made a report to the Senior Inspector, Vartak Nagar Police Station, as per Exhibit ''F'' about its sell of the adulterated oil by respondent No. 2. Therefore, in this background according to Mr. Mundargi joining the petitioners as accused in the complaint under the provisions of P.F.A. Act was completely illegal and uncalled for and hence the complaints were liable to be quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
On the other hand it was contended by the learned A.P.P. that the petitioner No. 2 was found to have stored adulterated food in the premises of Voltas Limited - petitioner No. 1 as prohibited by Section 7 under the P.F.A. Act and therefore the petitioners were rightly prosecuted by the respondent No. 1. He also contended that if at all the circumstances pointed out by Mr. Mundargi were true, the Trial Court is competent to take them into consideration at the time of the trial or at any rate at the time when petitioners could apply for discharge.
I am not at all convinced by the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. The documents filed with the petitions and the circumstances brought on record which are not denied by the learned A.P.P. clearly show that it was the petitioner No. 2 and/or Voltas Limited petitioner No. 1 who first suspected that 28 tins out of 50 tins contained adulterated groundnut oil. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondent No. 2 and his manufacturer Raj Oil Mills by letter dated 27.5.1992. There is an acknowledgment of respondent No. 2 on this letter dated 27.5.1992 to the effect "I accept the above contentions of the letter." Thereafter there is a report of the Municipal Laboratory, M.C.G.B. dated 22.5.1992, and then complaints to the Sales Manager of the manufacturer, and complaint of Raj Oil Mills to the Commissioner of Food & Drug Administration and further complaint to the Senior Inspector, Vartak Nagar Police Station.
All these undisputed documents clearly show that it was the petitioner No. 2 or on his behalf Voltas Limited - petitioner No. 1 who showed alertness in suspecting the quality of oil supplied by respondent No. 2, who got the oil tested through a laboratory and who set the criminal law in motion by filing complaints to the Competent Authorities including the Commissioner of Food & Drug Administration and Senior P.I. Vartak Nagar Police Station. Apart from this, the most important circumstance that goes against the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. is that the manufacturer Raj Oil Mills in their letter dated 1.6.1992 brought it to the notice of the Commissioner that "28 tins were thereafter sealed and kept in their premises for further action in the matter." From this averment in the complaint dated 1.6.1992 it is clear that after the adulteration in the 28 tins was noticed, neither the petitioner No. 2 nor Voltas Limited - petitioner No. 1 used oil in the 28 tins and to the contrary with a view to support the machinery under the P.F.A. Act, to prosecute the respondent No. 2, those 28 tins were sealed and kept aside in the premises awaiting further action at the instance of the Commissioner of Food & Drug Administration.
The conduct of the petitioners as noted above, and revealed by the record, forming part of these petitions clearly show that the petitioners were acting with full caution and care and that they were diligent in discharging their duties as conscious citizens. Not a single circumstance is there to show that they had any role to play in sell, distribution or use of the adulterated oil. To the contrary, when the petitioners found that 28 tins of oil were adulterated, they stopped using oil from those tins in the canteen run by the petitioner No. 2. From their conduct it is also clear that they were very much alert about their rights and the consequences of adulterated oil may have, if the same is used for preparing food articles to be sold to the workers of petitioner No. 1 through the canteen of petitioner No. 2. They therefore got the oil tested through the Laboratory of M.C.G.B. and lodged complaints to all those directly concerned with the matter.
If law expects that every citizen should become diligent and watchful in respect of the happenings around, then the conduct of the petitioners cannot at all be labelled as that of law breakers, illegal or improper. If at all the petitioners were party to the adulteration of the oil, they would not have taken so much pains to note the adulteration in 28 tins, to separate those tins from the entire stock, to lodge complaints to authorities and keep those 28 tins separately in sealed condition awaiting further action from the authorities. Therefore, for all these reasons the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
This is therefore a case where prosecution is launched under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act against not only innocent persons but against the persons who had shown due regard and respect to the provisions of law and who had taken care to see that guilty are brought to the book. The prosecution against the petitioners may not be mala fide but it is certainly not bona fide. It appears that the petitioners have been joined as accused without any application of mind and in the most casual and careless manner. If the facts leading to the discovery of the adulterated oil were carefully considered by the complainant, there would have been no occasion to implead these petitioners as accused and therefore it is necessary to impose cost on the respondent No. 1. Quantum of cost is however immaterial.
In the background of the circumstances, prosecution against the petitioners in the said complaints are totally uncalled for, unjust and illegal and therefore the petitions are liable to be allowed. Hence, the order :
ORDER
Petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute in all the petitions.
Complaints pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in Criminal Case Nos. 887, 888 and 889 all of 1993 against the petitioners are quashed.
Respondent No. 1 to pay token cost of Rs. 1 /- to the petitioners in each petition.