HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6579 of 2009 Dated : 24.08.2009 Between : N.Chinna Dastagiri Setty & 5 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6579 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Kalyan Ram, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for both the respondents. The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.624 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in pursuance of the inspection by the Food Inspector to the premises of the first accused on 27.01.2006 and lifting of samples of ‘New Boost’. When the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, the same was found to be adulterated. As per his report, dated 27.02.2006, the sample did not conform to the standard of coliform count. The written consent of the Food Health Authority, Hyderabad, was obtained on 04.12.2006 and the complaint was filed into the Court on 29.08.2008. The grievance of the petitioners in this criminal petition is that the shelf life of the article manufactured in January, 2006, was only 12 months and as the complaint was filed 19 months after the shelf life of the article was over, the valuable right of the petitioners to have the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory was lost. As the complaint was filed with a delay of more than 30 months from taking sample, the petitioners desired the proceedings to be quashed. The petitioners relied on the earlier decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.4310 of 2009 decided on 25.06.2009, which was again rendered following an earlier decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.4955 of 2008 decided on 10.09.2008. This Court has taken a consistent view that where the valuable right of the accused under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is lost due to violation of the mandatory provisions of law and delay, no purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution. The facts in the present case are equally covered by the said decision and hence the petitioners have to succeed. In the result, the further proceedings in C.C.No.624 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, Kurnool District, against the petitioners are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 24th August, 2009 SUR