THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6050 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 Between: Rachuru Nooru Basha .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6050 of 2008 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the C.C.No.262 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni, Kurnool District, urging that the alleged offence took place on 20.01.2007 and report is dated 20.01.2007 and the complaint was filed before the Magistrate on 30.05.2008. Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) mandates that immediately after the receipt of the Public Analyst report, there is a duty cast upon the Food Inspector to serve a notice along with the report of the Public Analyst to the accused enabling him to request the Court to send the second sample to another agency i.e. the Central Food Laboratory for the purpose of second opinion. In the instant case, the said mandatory provision was not followed, which ensures the benefit of the petitioner herein. Learned Public Prosecutor while submitting his reply arguments urged that when there is a full-fledged trial, the petitioner cannot be sought the interference of the Court to quash the proceedings on the grounds relied by the petitioner. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings pending before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni in C.C.No.262 of 2008? As seen from the petition grounds, the offence took place on 20.01.2007 and there is Public Analyst report dated 27.02.2007 bearing No.23/2007 and the Public Analyst report was not served on the petitioner but the complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate on 30.05.2008. Though Section 13(2) of the Act mandates that “immediately after the receipt of the Public Analyst report, there is a duty cast upon the Food Inspector to serve a notice along with the report of the Public Analyst to the accused enabling him to request the Court to send the second sample to another agency i.e. the Central Food Laboratory for the purpose of second opinion”. Unless there is evidence on record to show that there is violation of the aforesaid Section 13(2) of the Act, any finding as on this date is premature. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the said plea at the time of trial, so that he can get the benefit under Section 13(2) of the Act, if the petitioner is otherwise able to convince the Court on evidence. Therefore, any finding in this petition is premature. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 16-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6050 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 MR