IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3343 of 2008 DATE:23.07.2010 Between: Thiruna Hari Prasad and another …… Petitioners And: The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3343 of 2008 ORDER : This is a glaring example of the Government departments booking cases and ultimately sabotaging such cases by their avoidable and intentional delays. 2) The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) for violation of Section 2(ia)(m), Section 2(ix)(e), 7(i) & (ii) of the Act. Sample product taken by the food inspector is packaged drinking water marketed by Rohan Enterprises and manufactured by Supraja Enterprises. A-1 and A-2 are connected with Rohan enterprises. There is no batch number or packaging date on the sample product. The samples were lifted on 22.05.2004 and it was dispatched to the public analyst on 24.05.2004 which is the next working day. After analysis, the public analyst sent report dated 16.06.2004 to the Assistant Food Controller (HQ) opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of aero microbial and the sample is not as declared on the label, as evident from Aerobic Microbial count and that therefore it is adulterated and misbranded. Though report of the analyst was received on 16.06.2004, report dated 05.01.2005 was submitted by the Food Inspector to the Director of Food (Health) authority seeking necessary orders of sanction. Ultimately the Director and State Food (Health) Authority accorded written consent to launch prosecution against the accused as per proceedings dated 20.03.2006. The complainant namely Food Inspector took his own time for filing the complaint in the lower Court on 09.08.2007. It is only thereafter notice was issued to the accused for taking steps under Section 13(2) of the Act. By the time of giving written consent for prosecution and by the time the complaint was filed in the lower Court, shelf life of the sample product must have expired and the some molecular values which existed at the time of lifting the sample or at the time of analysing the sample by the public analyst will not continue in the second sample. It deprives the petitioners/accused of their defence by exercising their valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act to send second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for second analysis and second report. In that view of the matter, prosecution of the petitioners in the lower Court is totally vitiated. 3) Hence, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No.8 of 2007 on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are concerned. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 23, 2010 KSH