THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8827 of 2008 And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8828 of 2008 And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8840 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are accused of three different offences under Section 7(i) and (ii), 2(ia)(m), 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, for violating Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The 1st petitioner is Manufacturer and the 2nd petitioner is Licence Holder for manufacture of misbranded Bisleri with added minerals. After colleting the samples from the respective shopkeepers, the samples were sent for analysis. The public analyst after analysis, gave reports opining that the samples do not conform to the standards of Aerobic microbial count and Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and is therefore adulterated as per Section 2(ia)(m) and misbranded as per Section 2(ix) (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the complainant/Food Inspector did not give mandatory statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and that therefore, the complaints are vitiated. It is further contended that in case second opportunity is not given to the petitioners for sending second sample to Central Food Laboratory for analysis, then valuable defence of the petitioners/accused is lost causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. 3. Whether notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is given or not, is a question of fact. This Court in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot entertain a disputed question of fact. It is a matter of proof before the Magistrate in the respective cases. It is contended that list of documents filed along with the respective charge sheets does not show giving of such notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is expected to be given after institution of the prosecution i.e. after filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance of the same for the offences mentioned therein by the Magistrate. Therefore, there is no possibility of mentioning notice under Section 13(2) of the Act in the list appended to the charge sheet. In that view of the matter, these are matters which are to be agitated before the respective Magistrates during trial. There are no grounds in law for quashing the proceedings pending in the lower Court. 4. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:17.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8827 of 2008 And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8828 of 2008 And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8840 of 2008 Dt:17.11.2011 ysk