IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.10459 of 2010 Between: Kommuri Satyanarayana & another … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & 3 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.10459 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 & A.2 in CC No.337 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet, Guntur district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The Food Inspector, Division III, Guntur inspected the shop of the first petitioner-A.1 ‘M/s Venkata Siva Agencies’ situated in D.No.8- 11-27, Kothabavai Bazar, Narasaraopet and found A.1 transacting the business and, suspecting the kissan mixed fruit jam, kept for sale to the public for human consumption to be adulterated, and purchased 6 sealed tubs of each weighing 100 gms by following prescribed procedure and sent one of such samples to the Public Analyst and after analysis, the Public Analyst gave a report on 03.08.2006 opining that the sample does not confirm to standard of Sulphur dioxide among Class II preservatives added is therefore adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the Director, Public Health Authority, the Food Inspector filed a complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same in CC No.337 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 7(i) and 2((ia)(j) and Section 16(1-A)(i) of the P.F.A. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that the sample seized by the Food Inspector was packed in May 2006 and is best before 9 months there from i.e., before January 2007 as per the label declaration and the written consent for the prosecution was given on 04.07.2007 and the complaint was filed three months later on 24.10.2007. Thus, there was delay of more than one year two months from the report of the Public Analyst and till launching of the prosecution, which has resulted in denial of opportunity to the petitioners to seek re-examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory before the shelf-life period of nine months expired. 5. It is not disputed that the subject food item is a mixed fruit jam and it was best to use before 9 months from the date of packing as per label declaration. The subject food item was packed in May 2006 and the period of 9 months of its shelf-life was over by January 2007. No doubt, the Food Inspector took the sample on 24.06.2006 and the Public Analyst gave his report on 07.08.2006, both within the period of nine months, but, however, there was enormous delay in obtaining written consent for prosecution from the Director, Food Health Authority and the said consent was obtained on 04.07.2007 i.e., nearly 11 months after the Public Analyst sent his report. There is absolutely no reason or explanation furnished for such inordinate delay of 11 months for obtaining written consent for the prosecution. The complaint was filed with further delay of 3 months after written consent was obtained. Thus, there was total delay of more than one year two months from the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, till the date of filing of the complaint. By then, shelf-life period of nine months has expired long before i.e., even by January 2007. The petitioners, were therefore, deprived of their valuable right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act to seek re-analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. 6. In ‘Naresh Kumar Kedia V. Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and others[1]’, the proceedings are quashed when the prosecution was launched with a delay of nearly one year eight months on the ground of valuable right of the accused has been denied because of the delay. In ‘Konda Suryanarayana and others Vs. State of A.P.,[2]’, the proceedings were quashed observing that no useful purpose would be served by sending the sample for analysis after lapse of two years nine months. In ‘Vinod Namviar, Regional Sales Manager (Foods) & others vs. State of A.P., rep. By Food Inspector[3]’, the proceedings were quashed when there was a delay of 27 months in launching the complaint. In ‘Neghraj V. The State (Delhi Administration) & another[4]’, it was held that ‘there is no justification for launching the prosecution with a delay of two years after a sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst.’ 7. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions and having regard to the fact that the subject food item is mixed fruit jam, which is perishable in nature and would be intact only for a period of nine months from the date of packing and there was every possibility of the contents of the said item getting disintegrated or decomposed due to long lapse of more than one year from the date of taking the sample, till filing of the complaint. The petitioners’ right to seek re-examination of the sample under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, therefore, got defeated on account of inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint, resulting in deterioration of the quality of the sample food item. 8. Under those circumstances, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 in CC No.337 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet. It is therefore, held to be a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash further proceedings in CC No.337 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet against the petitioners and they are accordingly quashed. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.11.2010 bss [1] 2006 (1) FAC 104 [2] 2006 (1) FAC 157 [3] 2006 (1) FAC 235 [4] 1980 (2) FAC 191