THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9543 OF 2010 DATED: 07-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Sattenapalli against the petitioners-A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 7 and 16 (1) (1A) and (C) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). According to the 2nd respondent-complainant, on 19-05-2005 at about 6.00 p.m., he purchased a Sprite cool drink bottle for Rs.6/- from the 3rd petitioner-A3 and the bottle was found to contain panparag wrapper and therefore it was not fit for consumption as the contents were contaminated. 4. The 2nd respondent-complainant has filed the private complaint without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act, relating to taking of sample, sealing and packing of the sample and sending the same to public analyst. In fact, no sample of the allegedly contaminated cool drink was sent to the public analyst for his report and no such report of the public analyst is filed along with the complaint. 5. Section 20 of the Act mandates that a complaint shall be accompanied by the report of the public analyst. The Apex Court in SAUMINDRA BHATTACHARYA v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER[1] held that prosecution for an offence under the Act can be instituted by a purchaser only if the report of the public analyst is produced along with the complaint, and institution of the complaint without the report of the public analyst is not authorized in law. The Apex Court further held as follows: “We are, therefore, of the opinion that even assuming that some report of the public analyst had been put on record during the pendency of the complaint before the Magistrate, this factor will not cure the defect under Section 20 as the very institution of the complaint without the report of the public analyst was not authorized in law”. 6. In the present case also, as no sample of subject- food item has been taken in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and no such sample was sent to the public analyst for analysis and no report of the public analyst has been obtained and filed along with the complaint, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, institution of the complaint not being in accordance with law, is unsustainable and taking cognizance of the same by the learned Magistrate is also bad in law. As such, no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. It is therefore considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the further proceedings in C.C.No.28 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli, Guntur District, and they are accordingly quashed. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th December, 2010 Tsy [1] 2009 (13) SCALE 29