IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6951 of 2009 Between: Duggisetty Kondaiah .. Petitioner AND State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 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 all further proceedings in C.C. No.440 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, 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 Ch. Dhanamjaya, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, the Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6951 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C. No.440 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Nellore District under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Food Inspector inspected the premises of the 1st petitioner on 07-02-2006 and lifted samples of Boost malt based food. The Public Analyst to whom the sample was sent for analysis, opined the same to be adulterated in his report, dated 09- 03-2006, on which written consent from the Food Health Authority was obtained on 13-03-2007, corrected on 12-12-2007, after which the complaint was filed into Court. The petitioners contend that there was a delay of more than 24 months in filing the complaint after taking the samples and the article of food manufactured in October, 2005 had a shelf life of only 12 months. Therefore, the right of the petitioners to have the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory is lost. The petitioners base their claim for quashing the proceedings on the earlier decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1317 of 2008, dated 20-07-2009, which was rendered with reference to the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court on the aspect. The denial of the valuable right of the accused under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was uniformly opined to be making further prosecution an exercise in futility. On the admitted facts, the petitioners are, hence, entitled to succeed. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.440 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, Nellore District against the petitioners are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-09-2009 Svv