HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6201 of 2009 Dated : 12.08.2009 Between : K.Pulla Rao & 5 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6201 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.S.Kameswar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for both the respondents. The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.259 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally, Khammam District, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the Act’) in pursuance of the visit by the Food Inspector to the shop of the second petitioner on 31.01.2006 and lifting of samples of ‘Boost’. The samples were sent for analysis by the Public Analyst, who opined in his report dated 09.03.2006 that the sample did not conform to the standard of coliform count and therefore adulterated. The written consent by the Food Health Authority was obtained on 20.09.2006 and ultimately the complaint was filed into the Court on 29.12.2006. The grievance of the petitioners is that the seized sample was manufactured in September, 2005, and its shelf life was only 12 months while the complaint was filed 7 months after the shelf life was over. They claim that they have lost their opportunity to have the second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13 (2) of the Act. They claim that in view of the denial of the opportunity of such reanalysis, they are entitled to have the proceedings quashed against them in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court, illustratively the decision in Crl.P.No.4310 of 2009 dated 25.06.2009. The facts are not in dispute and the resultant effect of the delay in filing the complaint and the denial of the opportunity to have the second sample reanalyzed by the Central Food Laboratory have to be considered as depriving the valuable right of the petitioners, in which circumstances, this Court consistently held that the continuation of the prosecution will be futile. Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C.No.259 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally, Khammam District, against the petitioners are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 12th August, 2009 SUR