High Court of Telangana · 2025

Sri K Venkat Reddy, Sub-lnspector of Police, Ralerdranagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy. ..,RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto quash the CC No 835 of 2018 on the file of the PJCJ cum Xl Addl. It/etropolitan Magistrate, Rajendarnagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy, against Petitioner/Accu sed, in the interest of Justice and Equity. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No 835 of 2018 on the file of Honourable PJCJ CUM Xl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendarnagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy, and to pass such other order or orders to which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper under the law, facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of Justrce and Equity. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ihe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri AZIM PARBATANI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Smt S.Madhavi, the Assrstant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER rdg-{;..' /ar THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.7601 of 2022 ORDER This Crim nal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C C No B35 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The b'ref facts of the case are that on 20 07.2016, on credible informalion received by the Sub lnspector of Police that accused was indulged in preparation and sale of adulterated Ginger Garlic pasle and masala powders, at H.No.6-1 112, Darga Khaliz Khan, Ktsnrathpur, Rajendranagar, which are unhygienic for human consumption and without any valid license from the competent authorities and thereby cheating innocent people. The Sub lnspector of Police by securing panchayathdars and staff conducted scene cum seizure panchanama and seized the adulterated products under cover of panchanama. Basing on it, a case in Cr.No 1490 of 2017 was registered by the Rajendranagar Police Station purrishable for the offences under Section 420 of lndian Penal Oode and Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short'the PFAA'). 2

3. Heard li/r.Azim Parbatani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.tVadhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per specific procedure prescribed under section 10 of the pFAA, the Food lnspector alone is authorized to take sample of food and send it to public analyst for analysis and as per specific procedure prescribed under Section '13 of the PFAA, the public analyst will give a report of the food sent to him for analysis and the 2nd respondent bypassed the above said law and without jurisdiction took the complaint suo-moto and searched the place of business and seized the food without obtaining report from public analyst and investigated the case and filed charge sheet. There is no inducement by the petitioner at the inception or at later stage and none of the witnesses have explained as to who were cheated and as such, section 420 of IPC does not apply.

5. lt is further submitted that as per rule 8 (c) of the Food Safety and Standard Rules 201'1 , the food inspector must possess requisite qualifications as notified by the Central Government for the purpose along with three months satisfactory training in food inspection and sampling work under a Food /] 3 Authority or in :rn institution approved for the purpose by the Central Governrrrent and the 2nd respondent has no such experlise or profic;iency as such search, seizure, investigation, sampling and prosecution Further, the PFAA is repealed on 05 08.2011 and in lieu of 97 of the Food Safety'and Standards Act, 2006, (for shorl 'the FSSA') which came into force on 23 08.2006 the pretitioner/accused had been prosecuted in a repealed Act, which is grave illegality and violation of law. 6 ln slpport of his contention he relied on a decision held by the Hon'cle Apex Court in Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. State of Madhya Pradeshl , wherein it was held as under: I I i t i l

16. .At this stage, we may refer to sub-seclion (4) <';f Sc:tion 97 of FSSA, a sunsef c/ause. Sub- section (,t) of Section 97 reads thus '(4) ^lotwithstanding anything contained in any other l,aw for the time being in force, no Ccturt shall tak': cognizance of an offence under the repealecl Act or orders after the expiry of a period of thrett years from the date of the comment)ement of this Act " 17 Sub-secflon (4) Provides that notwithsltndittg the repeal of the PFA, cognizance of the ofrence committed under the PFA can be taken r tthin thrce years f rom the date of commencement of the FSSA. Ihe implication of sub-sectton (4) of Section 97 is that if an offence is commrttei under the PFA when the PFA was in force, cotrnizance of the crime can be taken only '2023 SCC online SC 1678 4 .'.t9 within three years f rom the date of commencemenl of fhe FSSA. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner

7. Learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and prayed to grant liberty to the respondents to take action under the FSSA. B. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that in view of the Apex Court Judgment and as the pFFA has been repealed on 05.08.2011 and a complaint has been lodged on 20.07.2017 under pFFA. Further, the FSSA came into force on 23.08.2006 and as per section 97 @) ot the FSSA, no Court shall take cognizance under the repealed Act or Orders after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the commencement of this Act. ln the present case, as per the sub_section g7(4) of the FSSA, 3 years period has lapsed from the date.of complaint as per repealed Act of PFFA and the present offence is lodged in the year 2017, where the authorities ought to have registered a case under section pertaining to present FSSA, as the offence registered is under repealed Act, the proceedings initiated in c.c.No.835 of 2o1B on the fire of the rearned principar Junior civir 5 l i Judge-cum-Xl A,Jditional Metropolitan lVagistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District are liable to be set aside

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.835 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil JLtdge-cum-Xl Additional Metrcpolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed l/iscellaneous petitrons pending, if any, shall stand closed. I l To, //TRUE COPY// sD/- N. SRI HAR| DEPUTY REGI$TRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The PJCJ cum.(l Addl. Ir4etropolitan Magistrate, RajenCarnagar, Cyberabao, Ranga Reddy

2. The VIII MetropDlitan [/agistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendarnagar. 3. The Station Hou:;e Officer, Police Station, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. ONC CC tO SRl I'ZII\4 PARBATANI , AdVOCAtC IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Tp PSL k HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 \ I ORDER CRLP.No.7601 of 2022 0 4 APB 2[25 i t .oe s PnrcP., .4 * CRIMINAL PEI'ITION IS ALLOWED L 2, [1