Madras High Court
Jayasakthi Edible Oils Pvt.Ltd vs Unknown on 15 November, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.14675 of 2017
& Crl.M.P.Nos.9297 & 9298 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.14675 of 2017
& Crl.M.P.Nos.9297 & 9298 of 2017
(Through Video Conference)
Jayasakthi Edible Oils Pvt.Ltd,
R.Ramesh
S/o Raje,
383/9, Pillaiyar Nagar,
Kandampatty (PO),
Salem-5 ...Petitioner
Vs.,
The State rep. by its
Food Safety Officer,
Kallakurichi Municipality,
Villupuram District ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the records in S.T.C.No.432 of 2016 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
_________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14675 of 2017
& Crl.M.P.Nos.9297 & 9298 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint
filed by the respondent in S.T.C.No.432 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Kallakurichi and quash the same.
2.The main contention of the petitioner is that he has arrayed as A3. His
main contention is that the complaint itself would indicate that the edible oil
was packed during the year April 2014 and it has also clearly indicated that it
should be used before six months from the date of package. Whereas, A1 is the
retailer and A2 is the distributor and whereas the respondent has collected a
sample from the A1's shop on 07.10.2014 and sent the sample to the laboratory
and the analyst report was received on 21.10.2014. Thereafter again on
08.01.2015, the Central laboratory report has been received. However,
prosecution has not been launched as contemplated under Section 42 of the
Food Safety and Standards Act, but the prosecution was filed belatedly beyond
the period of the limitation.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14675 of 2017
& Crl.M.P.Nos.9297 & 9298 of 2017
3.On perusal of the complaint, except the contention that there is an
administrative delay, which resulted in filing the complaint with delay and no
reason recorded by the respondent. In this regard, this Court has also
deprecated the practice of the respondent for giving such reasons in a judgment
reported in 2020 SCC Online Madras 12748 [G.Irudhayanathan vs.,
B.Ramakrishnan].
4. At any event, without going to merits, as far as A3 is concerned, he
has only manufactured the edible oil in the year 2014 and he has indicated in
the package that it should be used before six months from the date of the
package. But, whereas both A1 and A2 sold the product even after the expiry of
six months. Further, when the manufacturer has clearly indicated that it should
be used before the expiry period of six months and the retailer has sold such oil
after the expiry period, the manufacturer cannot be made liable for criminal
action. At the most, the prosecution would be maintainable only as against A1
and A2, but not against A3.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14675 of 2017
& Crl.M.P.Nos.9297 & 9298 of 2017
5.In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the
S.T.C.No.432 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi
against A3 alone.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
rpp/gd
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Kallakurichi
2. The State rep. by its
Food Safety Officer,
Kallakurichi Municipality,
Villupuram District
3. The Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Madras.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14675 of 2017
& Crl.M.P.Nos.9297 & 9298 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rpp/gd/ggs
Crl.O.P.No.14675 of 2017
15.11.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
