ANAND KRIPALU Vs. N JANARDHAN RAO MAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.806/2011 pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and to quash the orders dated 19.07.2010 and 23.12.2010 at Annexure 'A'.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition are that on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent Mr. N Janardhan Rao Magar who is said to be the purchaser of Cadbury chocolates from M K Ahmed Super Shoppee at Bangalore. The chocolates purchased by the complainantrespondent were found to be adulterated and contaminated. Therefore, the said chocolates were sent to Public Health Institute, Government of Karnataka, Sheshadri Road, Bangalore on 07.01.2010. After conducting the test in respect of the said chocolates, the institute had submitted the report on 19.01.2010 opining that the dead insects, insects excreta and web formation were found in the said chocolates and it was also stated that the sample chocolates sent for examination were unfit for human consumption. Thereafter the complainant approached the BBMP along with the reports issued by the Public Health Institute, but there was no response from the BBMP. The complainant had also sent a letter dated 29.04.2010 to the Cadbury Company informing about the manufacture of adulterated and contaminated food products, but the said Company did not take any action. Despite representation given to the BBMP and other competent authorities no legal action was taken against the manufacturers. Hence he was constrained to file a private complaint. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and has issued summons.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that when the complainantrespondent had approached the BBMP under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along with the report issued by the Public Health Institute, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The initiation of proceedings under Section 273 IPC is not permissible under law. Even the allegation for the offence punishable under Section 420 are baseless. In support of the said contention the learned counsel has relied on a decision in the case of C H Satyanarayan vs. State reported in,2012 132 DRJ 652.