Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the appellant's application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an order impleading them as an accused in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant, M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd., was the marketer of a packed food article 'Orange Tammy Sugarless Jelly'. On 3 October 2008, a Food Inspector purchased samples of the jelly from a retailer, which were found to be misbranded due to the presence of sugar. The retailer later disclosed that the jelly was purchased from the appellant. The Food Inspector attempted to contact the appellant but communications were sent to an old Indore address, while the appellant's registered office was in Mumbai. Consequently, the appellant was impleaded only after five years, following an application by the retailer under Section 20A of the Act. The High Court upheld the impleadment, holding that mens rea was not an ingredient, the right to re-test under Section 13(2) was only for adulterated articles, and the delay was not fatal. The Supreme Court considered the primary issue of whether denial of the right to get the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) would entitle quashing of proceedings. The court examined the provisions of the Act, noting that Section 13(2) provides for re-testing by the Central Food Laboratory upon receipt of a report that the article is adulterated. However, the court interpreted that the right is not restricted to adulteration but applies to misbranding as well, given the legislative intent to ensure uniformity and finality in testing. The court found that the delay in impleading the appellant was attributable to the respondents' negligence, as they sent communications to an old address despite the label clearly showing the Mumbai office. The court held that denial of the statutory right to re-test due to such delay renders the prosecution futile. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the proceedings against the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Right to Re-test - Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The right to get a sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) is not restricted to cases of adulterated food articles but applies to misbranded food articles as well - The court held that denial of this right due to delay renders the prosecution futile (Paras 5-8). B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Impleadment of Manufacturer/Distributor - Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - An application under Section 20A can be made by a retailer to implead the manufacturer or distributor during trial - The purpose is to detect and punish adulteration at all stages of the supply chain (Para 7). C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Where an accused is denied their statutory right to get a sample re-tested by a central testing laboratory on account of delay attributable to the prosecution, such denial will render prosecution of the offence futile and proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether denial of the right to get the food sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, would entitle quashing of proceedings against the appellant for the offence of misbranding?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of High Court set aside. Order dated 01.09.2015 impleading appellant as accused quashed. Proceedings against appellant in the trial court stand quashed.
Law Points
- Right to re-test sample under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 applies to misbranded food articles
- Delay in impleading accused due to negligence of prosecution vitiates proceedings
- Section 20A application maintainable by retailer
