IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6307 of 2009 Between: K. Krupakar Reddy .. Petitioner AND The Food Inspector, Gudur Municipality, Gudur, SP SR Nellore District and another. .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.195 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magsitrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C. No.195 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District facing prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). He was prosecuted on the alleged disclosure by the 1st accused that he purchased food articles, the samples of which were found to be adulterated, from the petitioner, for which no bill was issued. The petitioner claims that there was no bill or invoice or any other document showing the source of supply to the 1st and 2nd accused and his prosecution was solely based on the labels affixed to the containers and the statement of the co-accused. That apart, he also relied on the delay of seven months in filing the complaint since the lifting of samples, while the product was best before 30 days from the date of packing. He claims that he was deprived of sending a second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for reanalysis and he also claims that water is not an article of food under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily relied on the decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2184 of 2009 and batch, dated 29-06-2009, in which also the decisions in Radheshyam Lohiya v. State of A.P.[1], T. Srihari Ltd. v. State of A.P.[2], etc., were relied on to show that such a prosecution is untenable. The answer to a reference by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2714 of 2003 on 31-12-2007 also made it clear that prima facie establishment of the link with the alleged adulterated food is sine qua non for prosecution of the manufacturer or distributor or dealer, for which the information gathered in terms of Section 14A of the Act alone is insufficient. However, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 20A of the Act was left open. Herein also, irrespective of other questions, the same result should follow on an identical fact scenario. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.195 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District against the petitioner are quashed subject, however, to the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 20A of the Act based upon the evaluation of the evidence gathered during the trial, but before the same is concluded and further subject to the right of the petitioner to rely on the grounds of delay and the exclusion of the article in question from the definition of ‘food’ in defence in the event of any such proceedings. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-08-2009 Svv [1] 2007 (3) L.S. 298 [2] 2006(2) ALT (Crl.) 459 (AP)