IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7130 OF 2008 Between: Jana Ramesh and another …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7130 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by petitioners/A-1 and A-2 seeking quashing of proceedings against them in C.C.No.696 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovur, Nellore District. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovur against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 alleging offence under Section 16(1-A) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). According to the complainant, on 23.02.2008 at about 11.30 A.M., the Food Inspector visited M/s Sai Industries and found A-1 operating process of manufacturing packaged drinking water. A-2 is the proprietor of the said unit and that suspecting the water to be adulterated, the Food Inspector purchased 36 water packets, each 250 ml for Rs.18/- and took the samples and sealed them following the procedure prescribed and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad on 25.02.2008. It is further stated that the Public Analyst analyzed the samples on 31.03.2008 and opined the same to be adulterated and does not conform to the standard of aerobic microbial count. After receiving the analyst report dated 12.4.2008, the Food Inspector obtained written consent on 14.07.2008 from the Director, Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad and filed the complaint on 27.08.2008. Twenty three days later on 20.09.2008, the Food Inspector served notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. 4. It is not disputed and is also borne out by the panchanama prepared by the Food Inspector that the shelf life of the subject food item viz., the water is only 30 days from the date of process. The sample was lifted on 23.02.2008 and the same was analyzed more than 30 days thereafter on 31.03.2008. Thus, even by the date of analysis, the shelf life period of the sample had already expired. Secondly, under Section 13(2) of the Act, notice is required to be served on the accused furnishing copy of the analyst report within ten days of filing of the complaint to enable the accused to seek re-analysis of the sample. The Food Inspector has admittedly failed to serve notice within the said period of ten days as required under the Act and the delay in serving the notice is not explained. As such, the accused was deprived of the opportunity of seeking re-analysis of the sample by the C.F.L in time and the subject food item being water, there is every possibility of the quality getting deteriorated and the contents getting degenerated and thereby rendering the sample unfit for analysis, on account of delay. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners/accused are virtually deprived of their statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Act for seeking re-analysis of the sample on account of the long lapse of time between the date of taking sample and filing of the complaint which causes any amount of prejudice to the defence of the accused, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are not sustainable and the same are liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and further proceedings against petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.696 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovur, Nellore District, are hereby quashed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th November, 2011 Lrkm.