IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6255 of 2009 Between: W. Basavaraju and another .. Petitioners AND The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records in S.T.C. No.19 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madakasira, Anantapur District and quash the same against A.2 and A.3. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Maheswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondents, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. The petitioners are the 2nd and 3rd accused in S.T.C. No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira facing prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). The samples of groundnut oil lifted from the shop of the 1st accused were said to have been found adulterated and the label declaration led to ascertainment from the 3rd accused about the 2nd accused being the nominee of the 3rd accused for purposes of action under the Act. The 2nd and 3rd accused were prosecuted as the manufacturer and nominee of the manufacturer. They claimed that they cannot be prosecuted merely on the label declaration without proof of any other connecting link. They also claimed that the 1st accused did not disclose the source of purchase or the identity of the petitioners. Hence, they sought for quashing of the proceedings against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the answer to a reference given by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2714 of 2003 on 31-12-2007, which was followed in Criminal Petition No.2184 of 2009 and batch on 29-06-2009. It was laid down by the Division Bench that the Food Inspector, unless he has picked up the sample for analysis right from the place of manufacture, has to necessarily prosecute the manufacturer or dealer or distributor or agent only upon prima facie establishing their link to the alleged adulterated food, which has to be sold or offered for sale, for which purpose the information gathered in terms of Section 14A of the Act alone is insufficient. The Division Bench, of course, reserved the power of the Magistrate to act under Section 20A of the Act later. The facts in the present case are squarely covered by the said principle and the same result should follow. Therefore, the further proceedings in S.T.C. No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira, Anantapur District against the petitioners are quashed subject to the same not precluding the exercise of the power under Section 20A of the Act by the learned Magistrate, if, upon evaluation of the evidence gathered during trial, but before the same is concluded, the learned Magistrate directs the exercise of such power to be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-08-2009 Svv