THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5793 OF 2008 Date: 16.11.2011 Between: Shaik Akbar Basha …..Petitioner And Food Inspector D-XI, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5793 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.828 of 2007 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur (trial court). The offence alleged against the petitioner in the said case is one punishable under Sections 7(i), 2(Ia) (m) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short Act). He filed this petition for quashing the said case. 3. To appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the case, the following circumstances which are not in dispute should be noted. The petitioner is running a business called “Quality Snacks and Tea Shop” in Israelpet, Guntur. His business includes selling of tea and for that purpose he brings milk for preparation of tea. Suspecting the milk brought by the petitioner to be adulterated, the Food Inspector lifted the milk sample from the petitioner’s business premises on 30.12.2005 and after following the procedure, he sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst by his report dated 16.1.2006 reported that the milk sample does not conform to the standard of the milk fat prescribed as per Section 2(ia) (m) of the Act and is therefore adulterated. These facts are not in dispute. 4. It may then be noted that after receipt of the Public Analyst report which is dated 16.1.2006, the Food Inspector filed complaint before the trial court alleging the above offences on 27.9.2007 i.e. with a delay of roughly about 22 months. It would be interesting to note that thereafter the competent authority issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the petitioner on 28.12.2007 i.e. three months later from 27.9.2007 calling upon him to apply for sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, if he so desired. 5. The plea of the petitioner is that since the sample was collected on 30.12.2005 on which date alone the same was divided into three parts, by 28.12.2007 i.e. the date of notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, the second sample has become unfit for analysis and because of the above delay of one year and eleven months and therefore he lost his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act which has to be mandatorily complied with and therefore the case against him should be quashed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute this. 6. It should be noted here that the food article in question is milk and the petitioner’s argument that nearly after one year eleven months, the second sample becomes unfit for analysis has to be accepted whatever may be the preservative that was added to the milk samples as milk is a quickly perishable article. Further nothing is mentioned in the notice given under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 28.12.2007 to indicate that even after a delay of one year eleven months the second sample is fit for analysis by reason of any preservative added to it. The authority when issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act should have make it clear in the notice that even after lapse of one year and eleven months the sample of milk was fit for analysis. This was not done. 7. This court in S.V.V.Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P.[1] and Konda Suryanarayana and others v. State of A.P.[2] has held that the long delay in filing complaints from the date of lifting of the sample would prejudice the case of the accused inasmuch as he will not be in a position to exercise his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act and therefore in such a situation the prosecution has to be quashed. In the first case, the food article was chilly power and in the second case it was dalda vanaspati. The reasoning given in both the above decisions is that the second sample will have become unfit for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory due to long delay. In the present case, the food article is milk which is much more quickly perishable commodity. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would not serve any purpose. 8. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid the criminal petition is allowed and the case against the petitioner is quashed. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 16th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5793 OF 2008 DATE: 16.11.2011 [1] 2008(2) ALD (Crl.)56 (AP) [2] 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 64 (AP)