Village, Toopran v. The Gazetted Food lnspector, L (H), Medak District, at Sangareddy

the Constitution ol [ndia bv the writ petitioners, ca I ng in qucstion the sanction lbr prosecution accorded by the thircl r rspondent vide proceedings No.10556/F3/2004 dared 19.1.2.t )5 and the consequential prosecution launched thereto, culrr nating in CC No.195 of 2005 on thc file ol the Judicial First CI iss Magisrrate (JFCM), Gajwel, T'oopran Manclal, Medak District. . he petitioners scek quahsment ol the aforcsaid proceedings ancL consequcntial reliefs as prayed fo r. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The Petitioncr No. I is employed as a Stenop -apher in the Instant Coffee Division of |\zt/s. Tata Coffee Ltd., forrr rrly knou,n as 2 vR(R, ., . wP t6082 2005 I Consolidated Coffee Ltd., a Public Limited Company having its registered ofhce at Pollibetta, Kodagu, Karnataka, and the Petitioncr No.2 is the Licensee of M/s. Tata Coffee Ltd. The prosecution rvas initiated by in C.C. No.195 of 2005, against lhe Petitioners and is pending on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magislrate, Gajwel, Medak District, Telangana. The Respondent No.2 is a Gazetted Food Inspector and the Respondent No.3 is the compclent Food Authority under the Prevention of Food Adultcration Act, 1954 (for short 'the PFA ActJ, who has accorded the impugned sanction for prosecution, pursuant to which, the said criminal proceeds have been launched. Therefore, a[[ the respondents are arrayed as parties to the present writ petition.

3. M/s. Tata Coffce Limited is engaged in the cultivation, sale and cxport of colfee and had acquired a 100o/n Export Orienlecl Undertaking (100% EOU) situated at Brahmanapally, Toopran Manda[, Medak District, Telangana, which was originally established by Asian Coffee Limited. Pursuant to a scheme of amalgamalion bctween Asian Coffee Ltd., Coffee Lands Limited and Veerarajendra Estates Ltd. with Consolidated Coffee Limited, as approved by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Company Petition No.199/98 dated 7.9.1999 with effect from t 1.8.2OOO, the said 100% EOU stood transferred to Consolidated VRKR, J wP 1tto82 2oas Coffee Limited. Thereafter, the name of the Compar y was changcd to M/s. Tata Coffee Limited, as evidenced by the [ft,r h Certihcate of Incorporation clatcd I r.08.2ooo. The Industrial Lr.r rce of thc said 10O% EOU, acknou.le dging thc change of name, u.i s approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Comparr - Affairs and Industry, vide proceedings dated l2_09.2000. Tf t Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Export processing 2 one, extended the EOU status lor a period o[ [ive years fronL g.O4.2OOO to 07.O4.2OO5, and furthcr exrended the same fronr 8.04.20OS to 07.O4.2OlO. It is statecl that from 03.10.19g6, ra.ht r the Letter of Intent was originally granted b5, the Ministry , f Commcrce, Government of India, the Unit has at all times b<.t n engagt:d in 1007o export of its product, namely, Grand Instant ,, tffee _ Export Quality, strictlv in accor-dance u ith the lmport ancl F): port poticy in force.

4. On 25.05.2004, the Food Inspector, Medak Dis,r -ict, collected samples of Grand lnstant Coffec - trxport eualitl, Mysore Gold Colfee Beans and Roasted Coffee Beans from the f I it petitioner. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 4.1.2005 stating rhat the public Analyst, State Focr Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, declared the sample as misb.r nded on the ground that the labei did not contain the complete z.r dress of the ; .l 4 I,RKF, . wP 160A2 2005 ', manufacturer in English or Hindi, alleging violation of Rule 33 of the Prer.,cntion of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 The petitioners submitted their explanation on 08 04 2005' contenting that the unit is a l0O% trOU functioning for over 15 years and that the product is cxclusively meant lor export to the Russian market and therefore the labels were printed in Russian language'

5. Subsequently, the Petilioners received a notice under Section 13 of thc PFA Act, along with the analysis report and sanction for proseculion, pursuant to which prosecution was launched in C'C' No.195/05 bcfore the 'ludicial First Class Magistrate, Gajrve[, Medak District, Telangana, and cognizance was taken on 2a.4 .2OO5. The analyst's re port does not allege any defect in the standard or quality ol the product and merely opines violation of Rule 33 on thc ground that the label is not in English or Hindi' Summons rvere issued posting lhe case to 01 O7 2005 It u'as StatedthattheentireactionoftherespondentsiSVexatious. baselessandanabuseoftheprocessofCourt'compellingthe petitioners to approach this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution oi India seeking appropriate writ reliefs'

6. Heard Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Tandra Ramesh, learned Assistant Government PleaderlorMedical,HealthandFamilyWelfareandperusedthe 5 VRKR, J wP 16082 2005 record including the grounds based on which th: petitioners are claiming the reliefs. - II. SUBMI SSIONS OF TH E PARTIES:

7. A Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners The learned Counsel for the petitioners slr rrnits that the factory from which the sample was taken is adnr rtedly a 100% Export Oriented Unit (trOU) and the product in c1r r stron, namel-y, Grand Instant Coffee - Export euality, is exclusr cly an export product and not meant for sarc in thc domesti,: market. It is contended thzrt the prevention of F-ood Adulteratirrrr Act, 1954, as evident from iLs Statement of Objects and Reasons rs lttended to protect the consumers in lndia from adulteratiorr of food and, though it extends to the whole of India, it has no .r iLra_ territorial operation, consequently, the Act and trre Rules fr:rrr:r i thereunder, including Rult: 33 o[ the prevention of Food AdtLI , ra[ion Rules, 1955, apply only to manufacture and salc of food pr rducts within India. It is argued rhar clespite this being specificir y brought to the notice of the respondents, zrnd despite tho respondents themselves noticing that the sample analysed was ol c tport quality, the third respondent acted arbitrarily in issuing tht show cause notice dated 04.O1.200.5 calling upon the petitioners I change the label in conformity with Rule 33. 1 I 6 rr?(&..,. wP 16a82 2AA5 B. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Public Analyst has not alleged an1, adulteration or dehciency in the quality or standard of rhe product. The sole opinion rendcred by the Public Analyst is with rcference to the alleged violation of Rule 33 on the ground that the Iabel is not in trnglish or Hindi. The respondents failed to appreciate that thc producL is manufactured exclusively for the Russian markcl, and therefore, the label is printed in the Russian language. The Petitioners placed reliance upon the letter of the Export Agent dated 24.12.2OO3, which clearly confirms thal the product belongs to the Russian market and that domestic sale in lndia is not permitted. ll is contendcd that without application of mind to these admitted facts, thc respondents have proceeded to initiate prosecution, rendering their action wholly unsustainable.

9. The learned counsel furthcr submits that the sanction for prosecution dated 19.1.2005 granted by the third respondent, the consequential notice issued under Seclion 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the prosecution launched in C.C. No.195/2005 on the {llc of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwcl, sufer lrom lotal non-application of mind and are arbitrary, itlegal and ultra uires the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Thc respondents failed to appreciate that there is no allegation u,hatsocver in any of the proceedings or --r- 1 VRKR, J wP too82 2005 in the complaint that the product in question rvrr ; sold in India. Under the Export and lmport Policy, a 100% F]O J is pro]ribited from sclling its products in thc Domestic Tarri Area withouL specific permission from the competcnt authon r , and no such permission ol domestic sale is atleged by the respon ients.

10. It is further submitted thar the F-ood Inspr ( tor appears to have obtained cash receipts from the first petitioncr- who is merely a Stenographer/ Personnel Assistant in the facton, ir rd is in no way concerned with the manufacture or sale ol the p,r. luct The flrst Pctitioner merely permitted the taking of sampk s and, without realising the implications, signed the documents tit he instance of the Food Inspector. Therefore, there is no inciclt r ce of sale as contemplated under the Act. The samples $.ert, iken front the factory premises, rvhich is a custom bonded u: re house, and hence, it cannot be said that the goods were manuf r .tured for sale in India or were being sold in India. The allcgation in thr: complaint that the Foocl Inspector "purchased,, the sarnpl,, s a complete misnomer, rendering the sampling under Sectiorr O of the Act unauthorised and invalid. 1 l. Learned counsel further submits that l,r I . IX of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, dealing wittr 5 ackaging and labeling of foodstuffs, must be construed in the ligl r of the object 8 wP t5042 20as of the Act and can apply only to food articles manufactured and sold in India. The rule-making por','er under Section 23(1)(d) of the Act is intended to prcvenl the tndian public or purchasers from being misled as Lo the naLure, qualitl' or quantity of food articles and has no application to export goods Similarly, provisions relatingtofoodinjurioustohealthnecessarilyrefertothehealthof citizens of India. The interpretation placed by the respondents on Rule 33, the sanction granled and the prosecution launched, are therefore, wholly misconceived and ultra uires the powers conferred under the Act and the Rules. Even Section 7 of the Act, which prohibits manufac[ure, sale, storage or distribution of food, applies only in relation to domestic market activities and has no application to food mcant exclusivclv lor export'

12. In the above circumstanccs, it is submitted that the prosecution launched against the Petitioners and the cognizance taken by the Learned Magistrate in C C No 195/05 are totally ultra uires the provisions ol the Preventiolr of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause serious prejudice and harassment to the Petitioners, when on the face ol the complaint and the preliminary material produced by the respondents, no offence is made out' The continuation of the proceedings would therefore amount to a sheer i e!'! rf- Fr Y -9 vP 16AA.t 2005 abuse of the process of law, warranting interferenc,: by this Hon'ble Court under ArLicle 226 of the Constitution of I nd ir . b) Submjssions on behqlf of the Respondent:,- s!s!4

13. Per contra, the learned Assistant ()over rment Plcader appearing for the Respondents submits that S- R. Laxmaiah (LW I), who lifted the sample and instituted the con.l laint, is a duty notified and competent Food [nspector, empou ct 'd to exercise duties and powers under the Prevention of Food Ar r-rltcration Act, 1954, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.452, Medical, Hcal h ancl Family Welfare (L1) DeparLment, dated 07.O9.1994, and is i Iso specifically authorized to institute prosecutions under G.O.Ms..Jo.62, Medical & Health (Ll) Department, dated 3O.0i.1985. It is further submitted that the Senior Food lnspector, re- lcsisnared as Gazetted Food Inspector under G.O.Ms.No.87A da r d 09.A3.1994, functions as thc Local (Health) Authority, and Lirir thc Dircctor, lnstitute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health l-rL ,or:rtories and Food (Health) Aciministration, Hyderabad, has bcer: rotilied as the State Food (Health) Authority for thc StaLe ol Anclhr r priLdcsh rvith elfect from 01.01.2004 under G.O.Ms.No.46 HM & r W (t,1), dared

07.o9.2004. - 10- wP 16082 20.\r ,-.:Fr.]

14. [t is contended that on 25.O5.2OO4, between 1 l.3O a.m. and

3.00 p.m., the Food Inspector (LWl), under the supervision of Sri K. Sri Rama Murthy, Gazetted Food lnspector and Local (Health) .i Authority, Medak Districr, inspected Lhc premises of M/s. Tata Colfee Limited, Instant Coffee Division, Brahmanapally Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. At the time of inspection, Sri S. Nagaraju, Personncl Assistant, discloscd that the unit was manufacturing instant colfee for rnarketing in India and abroad and that the unit was holding a licence undcr thc pFA Act. During inspection, roasted coffee beans, Mysorc Gold Coffee beans and Grand Instant Coffee - Export Quality packed in sealed packets and tins were found. Suspecting the quality, the Food Inspector purchased specified quantities of the said items by paying the prescribed amounts and obtaincd cash receipts, whrch were attested by Sri K.V.P. Sarma, Production Assistant, examined as LW2.

15. The Iearne d Assistant ()or.crnmcnl pleader further submits that the samples were collected, divided into parts, scaled, Iabeled, and packed strictly in accordance u,ith thc procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules, in the presencc of mediators and the Personnel Assistant, and a panchanama \rras drawn. One part of each sample along with Form V[[ bcaring spccimen seal was sent to - 11- \ P 160a2 20a , the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nactrr : :im, Hyderabacl, on 26.05.2004 b1, registered post, while the renr. r ninq parts \r/erc deposited with the Local (Health) Authority, Mt:rl rk District. The Public Analyst analyzed the sample of Grand I rstant Coffee - trxport Quality bearing Code No. 053/MDK/DIt' 953/2004 and submitted Ar-ralysis Report No.321 /2OO4 dated 0S.t- /.2O04, opining that the label clid not contain the nature of the s,r nple in English or Hindi, as required under Rule 33 of the Prt , ,:n [ion of Food Adulteration Rr-rles, I955, and therelore declarcrl rhe sample as m isbranded.

16. It is furtl-rer contended that on submissior ,rf the de tailed report by the Food Inspector, the State Food (Healt r) Authoriry, in exercise of powers under Section 2O(1) of the Pre r:ntion o[ Irood Aciulteration Act, 1954, read with G.O.Ms.No.62 clr I :d 30.01.1985, accorcled writtcn consent dated 19.01.2005 f,r institution of p(rsecution in public interest. Pursuanl lhereto, l) r,secutiolt \\.as launched against Sri S. Nagaraju, personnel Assis: nt, and Sri A. Sengupta, Licensee of M/s Tata Coffee Limitr:rl for offcnces punishable undcr Sections 7(ii), 2(rx)(k) and 16( 1) r i rhe Act rcad \^'ith Rule 33 of the Prevention of Food Adulteratic r Ruies, 1955, alleging sale of misbranded Grand Instant Coffee - E). port euality. -12- IRXR,.. 1,UP 160a2 200s i7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the statutory authorities have acted strictly within the powers conferred upon them under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rures, that thc procedurc prcscribed [or sampling' analysis andsanctionhasbeendulyfollowed,andthattheltnding of misbranding is based on the expert optnlon of thc Public Analyst. lt is therefore' submitted that the initiation of prosecutton is legal and valid, and that the writ petition is devoid o[ merit and does not warrant interference unde r Article 226 of tlte Constitutlon of lndia OR THE DETERMIN ATION: POINTSF III. rival contentions and the 18. On the basis of the Pleadings' material placed on record before this Court' the follo'"ving tssues arise [or consideratton: Whether the Prevenlion of Food Adulteration Act' 1954 (i) and the Rules frame d thereunder aPPIY manufactured exclusively for export' and whcther the atleged under Rule 33 justifics initiation of prosecution? products violation Whether the prosecution against the petitioners ultra uires, or amounts to an abuse of the process of 1S (ii) arbitrary, Iaw? --- -13- wP 160a2 2003 IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: Point Nos, (il and ( iit

19. Wc havc carefully considcred the submissi,t rs advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

20. The reason assigned by the respondenr authorities [or rnrtlatlng prosecution against the petitioners i: Lhat the label pertaining to the food sample did not contain tlr. nature of the sample in English or Hindi, as required under lule 33 of the Prevention ol Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Orr that basis the sample was cleclared as misbranded.

21. There is no dispute that the respondent ,r rthorities havc obtained samples of food product namely, Gran<l I rstant Coffee - Export Quatity from the premiscs of the petitir I ers. It is an admrttecl [act that the analyst's report in respecL r t the strid food sample does not disclose any adulteration or ci -, iciency in thc quality or standard of the product.

22. Thc principal conLention of the learned r r unsel for thc petitioners rs that since the food sample ot_ ( Lined b1. the respondent authorities ',,r,as exclusively meant for e < rort to Russia, the provisions of Rule 33 of Prevention of Food Adu I eration Rules, 1955 and consequently Section 7 of the Act. .r ruld have no -14- $'P 16082 200s i application to the facts of the instant case. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 7 (ii) and 2 (ix) (k) punishable under Sections 16 (1)(a)(l) of the Acl read with Rulc 33 of the Prevcr-rtion of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is thc specific case of the petitioners that Section 7 of the Act, \lrhich prohibits manufacture, sale, storage or distribution of food or articles operates only in relation to domcstic market for consumplion rvith in India and has no application to goods manufactured solely for export. Consequently, the very foundaLion for initiating prosecution is stated to be absent. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Wcllarc that since the product was manufactured within Indian Territory, compliancc with the provisions of the Act is mandatorl' notwithstanding the fact that it was intended for 100% export-

23. The scope of the Act in relation to processing unlts manufacturing goods for export fell for consideration before the Bombay H igh Court in tl'te State of Maharasthra U Vishwanothappar, wherein the Court held as under: "That the factory in question uas a processirug foctory is ampLll estttblished euen bA the admissions giuen bg the Food Inspector' The said ftnding of the learned Magislrate also, lo an r"ceiues "rtern, I I979 SCC On[ne Bom 77 - 15- VRKR, J wP _16042 2005 coftoboralion fronl lhe personal inspection of tfLe said _i out bg th<. leanted Magistrate himseLf, There ts r;'lso atl record of the Food lrlspector that though he utas in the Jc 1 1/2 hours, he did not llnd o single customer coming to L the pLLrpose of purchasing any articLe frorn the said proc: There is elso no olher euidence to slloLu that ot ang {t custotner ltu.s euer gone to the processutg factorg of tl t purcltase of ang ctrlicle. The conclusion, therefore, 1l processing factory and not a place meant for sale of ( inesistiblt :tory carried dmission orr 'torg for ouer Le factory for sing lacto41. Ler tune atLA accused Jor rt this is cr ty arltcLe is

24. A similar vicw was laken by thc Kerala High )ourt in Food inspector u. Suwert and Dholakia (P) Limited 2 , t, rerein it was categorically held thert where the evldence establish( { that the food article was stored solely for the purpose of export, tlr( provisions ol the Act governing local sale !\/ould not apply. The ( ourt clarificd thal although export may incidentally involve the salc or consideration, the r:xpression "export" bears a rv der meaning signitying thc act of taking goods out of India to a plil 'c outside the country. It r.r'as furthcr observed that: " lS.There ts tlo case for the contplainant that the t, a oJ whtch the sr:tnples utere teken in the tnsta:rt case wqs meord jc [octtl sale or sale insrde tlta cout'\try. On the other hand, the t 'idetrce is categoic that the leo was stored in the qodown for bler c,rtg J'or the purpose ol' exporl. Tltough tlrc word export mag at ltme; rtuolte an element of sale atrd pagment of consideration the expres;ion has a uide lmport. The nteantng giuen to the uord in Conc se Oxford Dictionary is "serrd out (goods) to another country. ' '. he lixport , 1982 SCC Onhne Kc'r ?0 -1,6- lltP _16a82 2ods I (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, I 973 defines the word in S. 2(h) as follotus: ''Export", Luith its grammatrcal uariatiorts and cogtrate expressions, means taktng out of Indw to a place outside India.

16. Under S. 3n of the Tea AcL "export" means to take out of Ittd{a bg land, sea or air to ang place outside Indn other than ct country or terrilory notifred in thts behalf bg the Centrol Gouernment bg notificatton in the offctcll gazette. It lollows that the tefln need not rtecessanly implg a saLe of the ar1rcle.

17. The argument put fonuard bg Shi. Rama Shenot is tllaL lhe Act applies ot1lg to arxcles of food meanl for consutllptton tnstde tlle country and ho"s no apphcation to arttcles of Jood meant for export. There ts considerable weight in the contention." The Kerala High Court further held as under: "lt is onlg proper to point out in th:.s connection that uhile S. 5 oI lhe Act prohibits import of adulterated and mtsbranded food there is no prouision prohrbiting export of such food. S. 16 prouides for penaLtg on persons who 'tuhether bg himseL,f or bg another person otr fus behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, se s or distibutes ang arttcle of food". Whtle there [s a specifrc nrcntton aboul tnporl, there is stgniftcant omission of the u,ord 'e\)ort'. Thas nl.so is an itrdication to shotlt that the purpose of the Act is corrfined to prouiding unodulterated arlicles of lood to the people of llte country and has no appLicaton to commodities meant for exporl 25. Thc Court thus, held that once it is established that the goods arc meant for export, the Food Inspector lacks jurisdiction to take samples and launch a prosecution merely on the ground that the product does not conform to the domestic standards hxed under thc Act. -1,7 - t|/P t 6042 2005

26. In the instant case, the respondents have lailcr to place any material on record to establish that the food sample , ollecled from the petitioner's prcmises was intended for sale in lrr lia. There is no evidence whatsoevcr to show that the product u,as being offered or sold to consumers at the premises, from which tlr sample was obtained. Once it is established that thc ,roduct was manufactured exclusively for export and intended frr' ronsumption outsidc India, the irritiation of proceeclings under tl'rc, ct is without authority of law- Consequently, the prosecution laur ched against lhe petitioners cannoL be sustained.

27. It is the spccific contention of the learned co rnsel for the petitioners that the Food [nspector exceeded i- rs statutory authority in obtaining cash receipts lrom the hrst Pe,r r oner, who is admittcdly a Slenographer/ Personnel Assistant in r ll fa61ery ap6 has no role r.r,hatsoever in the manufacture, serl: storage or distribution of thc product. In support of the said cr> rtention, the lcarned counsel lbr thc petitioners placed relianc : upon the decision of thc Honourablc Suprcme Cour[ ir Municipat Corporation of Delhi u. Laxmi Narain Tandon and otl r rs3, wherein the Honourable Supreme Courr observed as under: r(1976) l scc s46 - 18- YRKe, WP 160a2 2oo:. .! I '14. t'rom d conjoiftt re(7ding of the aboue refened prouisions, it wiu be ctear thclt the broad scheme of the Acl is to prohibit au1 penalise the sole, or it7pot1, manufocture' storage or distribulton for sale oJ ona odulteroted arlicle oJ Iood' The tem]s "store" an(1 'tlistibute' tctke therr colour Iron the context ond the collocation of utords in which they occur in Sections 7 and 16' "Storage" or ''distribution" of on adulterated arTicle of Jood Jor a ptlrpose other than for sale does not fall LDithin the mischief of this section. That this is the ight construction of the terrns "store" and "distibule" in Section 16(1)uiU be further clear from a rekrence to Section 10. {)nder that section, the Food lnspector' Luhom the Act assigns a piuotal position for the enforcement of its prouisions' is authoised to take scLmples of an article of food only from particuLar persons ndulgllg in a speciled course of business actiuitg The imnediate or uLnTote end of such actiuitg is the so,le of an arlicle of footl. 'l'he sectiotl does not giue a blonket pouer to the' Food Inspector to toke somples of an arlicle of Jood front a person uho is not couered bg any of lhe sub-clauses of sub-sectton 1(a) or sub' section 2. The three sub-clauses of sub'section 1(a) applg onlg to a person who answers the description of a seller or conueger' deltuerer, crctuol or potentiat, of an article of food to a purchaser or consignee or his consignee after deliuery of such an article to hjnr' Sub-seclion (2) Iurther makes t clear that sdmple can be taken onlA of that article of food' which is 'mqnufactvred"', "stored" or exposed for sale. It follows that if an artrcle of food is not tntended for saLe and rs itt rhe Posses-sion of o person lltho does not IulfiU the character of a setler, conueAer' deliuerer, consrgnee' manufacturer or storer for snie such as is rekrred in sub-sections 1(a) and (2) of the sectton, the Food. Inspector witl not be competent under the lqw to take o sample and on such sample betng found adulterated' to ualidly launch prosecution tLLereon ln short, th'e expression "store" in Section 7 means "storing for sale", and' consequentlA storing of an adulteratecl articte of food- for pwposes other than for sale uould not constitute an offence under Section 16(1)(a) " -19- tlP 160a2 2005

28. The issue tha[ thus arises for consideration .: whcther the Food Inspector was competent to obtain a sanr rle from the manufacturing unit of the petitioners, more p:'ricularly by obtaining cash rcceipt lrom pctitioner No. 1, who t-. r'orking as a Stenographer - cum - Personal Assistant. It is to ;e seen that Section 10 (1) oi the Act aulhorizes the Food Ins r rctor to tzrke samples only from [i] a person selling rhe ar[iclt: < I food; [ii] a person who is rn the course of convel.ing, delivering c: preparing to deliver such article to a purchaser or consignee or [i i a consignee after delivery of any such article to him. The stal L I rry power is therefore, clearly conlined to persons connected ,.ith sale or delivery of food articles.

29. As noticed earlier, in thc instant case, thc respondcnt authorities obtained the cash rcceipL from petitioncr 'lo. l, who is neither a seller nor a manufacturer, nor otherwise enp tged in sale, delivery or distribution of the food article. The PetiLior :r No.1 does not fall within an\- of the categories enlrmerated und Section 1O (i) of the Act. Consequently, the act of obtaininll the sample through such person is bcyond the scope of autho- ry conferred upon the Food Inspector and renders the samp.i rg and the prosecution founded thereon legally unsustainable. -20- w - t6oa2 2c;6, Circulars Governing Export-Oriented Food Articles:

30. The learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to Circular No. I l2OO2-Cus., dated 8m January, 2002 in F.No.a50i 21l98 Cus.lV (Vol.tl) issued by Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise & Customs. The said circular, issucd in consultation with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, clarihes the appticabili+'' of the PFA Act, 1954 to food articles imporled or manufacturcd by Export Oriented Units (EOUs) or units in EPZ I SEZ. The circular records the clarification of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare that the provisions of PFA Act are not applicable to the food items meant exclusively for export. The relevant portion of the said circular is extracted hcreunder for rcady rel'erence: "l am directed to refer to Boord's Circular No.58/ 2001'Cus', dated 25.1O.2001 on the aboue mentioned subject. In the sqid Circular, it hos been prouided that c.lt the consignments of tmported food items ore to be re.fefted to Port Health Officers for testttlg under the PFA Act, 1q54. A reference hc.s been receiued from the trade stating that the food items imporled bg LOUs for subsequent exporl after processing shoutd be exempted from the mandatory testing under the said Act.

2. The mqtter ho.s been examined tn consuLtation wtth the Ministry of Health & PamiLy Wefare. It ls obserued that lhere s no provision in tlle PFA Act to exempt food items imported by EOUs or units in EPZISEZ Jrom testing under the satd Act' It has, howeuer, been ctariJied bg the Ministry olEetttn & Famitg Wetfare that the PFA -27- wP 16032 2005 Act is not appLicabte for food meaftt for export. Therefir., in case the Cornmissioner of Customs is scfisrfied that importecl [( ( I items, alter the[r processing in EOus or uruts in EpZ/ SEZ, shalt b: ?xpotled rLnd no part thereof shctll be sold in India, he mag alLow clec .ance of sut.lr Joorl tterns utitllou| nlandotory testing und.er the ; ,tcl Act. The Cotrtmtssiorters may take an unclertaking front the Il()i s or unils lrr DP7,/ SEZ tmporting the food items to the effect thclt tlt( npofted food itenr or ang product manufctctured therefrom woukl not e sotd in tlrc Dorneslic Tai,ff Area under anA circumslances." te I Effect of the Circular: 3 1 . A plain reading of the aforesaid circular, Iea'e s no manner of doubt that the competent authorities of the Union ( ( vernment has unequivocally recognized that the preven[ion of F',. Adurteration Act does not govern food articles exclusively mcant lt r- export. It is also evident from the above said circular thiri in case the Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that impot_tr i food itcms, after their processing in DoUs or units in Elrzll trZ, shall be exported and no part thereof shall be sold in lndia ,re may allow clearance of such food items without mandatory test ng under the said Act. In the present case, there is no allegation r.uch less any ma[erial, to suggest that the food products in I restion were intended for sale within India or diverted to the clorr:stic market. In the absence of such loundational facts, the inr,; _ation of the provisions of PFA Act by the respondents in the ur rtant casc is without any authority or sanction of law. -22- WP 16082 2Oo! I v. coNcLUSIONS 32. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act' 1954 is a regulatory statute enacled to control and prevent adulteration of food articles intended for sale or distribution for human consumption within the domestic market. The applicabitity of the Act is not automatic but is conditioned upon the existence of jurisdictional facts expressly contemplated by the statute lt is weli settled that where such jurisdictionat facts are absent, the statutory machinery cannot be set in motion on mere assumpt ion or suspicion'

33. The power conferred upon a Food Inspector under Section 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act' 1954 is not plenary but conditional in nature. Such power can be exercised only where the food article is so1d, exposcd for salc, stored for sale, or intended for sale for human consumption in India' The existence of these facts is a sine qua non for the assumption of ln their absence, an)' acLion purportcdly taken under foundational jurisdiction. Section 1O is rendered ultra vircs the Act

34. Rule 33 of the Prevention o[ Food Adulteration Rules' 1955' read in consonance with binding executive instructions issued by the Government of India, makes explicit the legislative intent that food articles manufactured or handled exclusively for export' without any element of domestic sale or intended sale' stand -23- VRKR, J l\'P 16082-2005 excluded from the regulatory sweep of the Act. I is equally well scttled that subordinate legislation and exectrli c instructionS, when consistent rvith the petrcnt statute, are binrL 1g on statutory authorities ernd cannot be disregarded at their liscretion (see: Union of Ind.ia u. K.P. Joseph and other{). u nequir.ocally manufactured

35. In the present case, the material on recor( establishes that the food product in question rvas solely for export altd was never intended to cnt(l thc domestic stream of commerce. .lhere is neither any alle] rtion nor any material to suggest sale, storage for sale, expos, c r.r sale, or divcrsion of the said product within India. The fact- rl substratum necessary to .rttract the provisions of the Act is, tlr refore, u.holly allse nt.

36. In the absence of the jurisdictional facts m I rdared under Scc tion I O of thc Act, and in view of the exp - ss exclusion contemplated under Rule 33 of the Rules, LI r respondent au thorities lacked the statutory competence to r I ]w samples, accord sanction, or initiate prosecution. It is trite I ert .r,hen the very assumption of jurisdiction is flawed, all r >nsequential proceedings are rendered void ab initio (see: Kiran SLr t h ancl otl_ters I (1973) I Supreme Couft Cases I94 (t ,(l u. Chaman Pasu.tan and otlterss)

37. The impugned proceedings are lhus founded on an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and are dehors the statulory framework of the Prcvention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder. Their continuance would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cannot be sustained. VI. RESULT: 38. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition succecds and is accordingly allou'ed.

39. The sanction lor prosecution granted by the third respondent and all proceedings emanating therefrom, including C.C. No' 195 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM), Gajwel, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, are hereby quashed.

40. Therc shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in the writ petition, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Friday, the Twenty Third Day ofJanuary, Two Thousand and Twenty Six. 5(1954) 1 Supreme Court Cases 710 //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD EPUTY AIL ISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Food lnspector, State of Andhra Pradesh. Divisio Gazetted Food lnspector, Medak District, at Sangaredd , C/o.Office of the O--zl-' ' ' :lGi -/ SA BS \

2. The Gazetted Food lnspector, L (H), Medak District' at Sangareddy . - 3 iii; D;;;i;;, tnititrt".itil."rbnti".i'rr/ledicine, Public - - inEnlrf i ndmn , NaravanagJd', Hvd""guda (Hea I I Authority of irreventron of Food Adulteration). + rwo cdi to cP FoR vreorCAL'HenLTH AND !4lt4lt' wELFARE' High ' s i;;'cc.l;cirbn nciiaulrunr, Hisrr court for 1 re state of Telansana 6 o*;;'cci;siii s FnaverN KUruAR, Advocate [o: JC] 7 Two CD CoPies Corrt toi tne State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OqT at Hvderabad IOUT'I Labs and Food "alth r --,i!,-qj- '7. -: 1 E 1E:E!:: r -*rE+:: {,ffi*r**r.,.-r, HIGH COURT DATED:2310112026 ;:=:=:_--- ;l:: S i,ri6 ^5' , ttB ?tr?t I ORDER WP.No.16082 of 2005 i )Es; I ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. S -,l4rt'