Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sandeep Popatrao Saikad, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking quashing of FIR No. 126 of 2010 registered at Ashti police station, District Beed, and the consequent charge sheet No. 85 of 2011. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 272, 328, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 5, 7, and 12 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The allegations arose from a raid conducted on 8 October 2010 at premises belonging to one Takale, where police seized milk powder valued at Rs. 4,500. The applicant was arrested in connection with the seizure. The applicant contended that the seized powder was whey permeate powder, a byproduct manufactured from fresh milk, used in confectioneries, bakeries, dairy whitener, ice cream mixes, and as a constituent for cattle and poultry feed. He argued that he did not carry on any grocery business; his brother ran a grocery shop, while the applicant himself ran a restaurant. He further contended that no adulterated food articles were found prepared using the seized substance. The Quality Assurance Manager of Paras had certified the whey permeate powder as a byproduct of fresh milk suitable for various food and feed purposes. The court examined the submissions and the nature of the substance. It noted that the powder was not an adulterant but a legitimate byproduct of milk. There was no evidence that the applicant had used the powder to adulterate food or that any adulterated food was prepared. The court held that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the court allowed the application, quashed the FIR and charge sheet, and discharged the applicant from all offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court quashed FIR and charge sheet where the alleged substance (whey permeate powder) was a byproduct of milk and not an adulterant, and there was no evidence of adulteration or preparation of adulterated food. Held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law (Paras 1-9). B) Food Adulteration - Whey Permeate Powder - Sections 5, 7, 12 of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - The substance seized was whey permeate powder, a byproduct of fresh milk used in confectioneries, bakeries, dairy whitener, ice cream mixes, and as cattle/poultry feed. It is not an adulterant under the Act. Held that no offence under the Food Adulteration Act is made out (Paras 5-9). C) Indian Penal Code - Adulteration of Food - Sections 272, 328, 420 IPC - The applicant was not found preparing any adulterated food articles using the seized powder. The powder was intended for lawful use. Held that no prima facie case for cheating, adulteration, or causing hurt by poison is made out (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and charge sheet against the applicant for alleged possession of adulterated milk powder (whey permeate powder) should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the substance is a byproduct of milk and not an adulterant.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. FIR No. 126 of 2010 registered at Ashti police station and charge sheet No. 85 of 2011 are quashed and set aside. The applicant is discharged from all offences.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC
- No prima facie case for offences under Sections 272
- 328
- 420 IPC and Sections 5
- 7
- 12 of Food Adulteration Act
- Whey permeate powder is not an adulterant
- Possession of whey powder for cattle feed or industrial use is not an offence
