THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7173 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A3 is accused of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i)/7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act). The Food Inspector made inspection of food articles kept in hyper market of A3 at Visakhapatnam on 27.07.2005 and obtained sample of jaggery. On 28.07.2005, the Food Inspector sent one of the samples to public analyst for analysis. On 07.09.2005, the local (Health) authority received analysis report from the public analyst opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of Sulphur dioxide content and is therefore adulterated. Written consent under Section 20 of the Act was obtained from Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on 20.07.2006 for institution of prosecution against A1 to A3. A1 and A2 are Floor Manager and Business Manager of A3. The complainant signed the complaint on 03.10.2007 and filed the same into the Court. Thereafter, the Magistrate took the case on file for the above offences against the accused on 31.12.2007. It is only thereafter, Food Inspector gave notice to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that because of the delay in filing the complaint and in serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on the accused thereafter, valuable defence of the accused to send the second sample to Central Food Laboratory became nugatory in as much as shelf life of jaggery expired long back. There is delay of nearly 2 ½ years in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused from the date of obtaining the sample from hyper market of A3. Shelf life of jaggery is round about six months to one year depending upon packing and storage conditions. After a period of one year, there are bound to be changes in chemical properties of jaggery irrespective of storing jaggery in air tight containers and irrespective of the temperature in which it is stored. When there is change in chemical properties of jaggery after a period of one year, no purpose will be served even if second sample is sent to Central Food Laboratory for analysis and second report. The petitioner/A3 lost valuable right in that regard and became prejudiced because of delay in institution of the complaint and service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act thereafter. Even though report of the public analyst was received in about 40 days of obtaining the sample, there was delay in obtaining written consent from the Director, which was obtained in about a year after obtaining of the sample. Even after obtaining written consent from the Director, there is inordinate and unexplained delay of one year four months in lodging the complaint before the Magistrate. It is nothing but due to sheer negligence on the part of the Food Inspector. In these circumstances, it would be futile exercise of conducting trial by the Magistrate against the petitioner. 2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.1041 of 2007 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, insofar as the petitioner/A3 is concerned. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:22.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7173 of 2009 Dt:22.12.2011 ysk