THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.4596 OF 2009 ORDER 1. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. In the circumstances of this case, it is considered that notice to the Food Inspector for hearing him is not necessary as he cannot improve the case. 3. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal case i.e., C.C.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty (trial Court). The petitioner herein is the second accused in the aforesaid criminal case. 4. This petitioner is stated to be the manufacturer of the Palmolein Oil in question whereas the 1st accused in the case is stated to be the retail vendor. It should be noted that the sample of the Palmolein Oil in the case was lifted on 28-09-2007 by the Food Inspector and after that he obtained the public analyst report which is dated 1-11- 2007, which shows that the Palmolein Oil is adulterated as it does not conform to the standard of acid value prescribed under the Food Adulteration Rules framed under the Act. It may be then noted that the complaint was filed on 25-4-2008 and notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was given on 28th January, 2009. Thereafter, this quash petition was filed on 3rd July, 2009. 5. It should be noted here that in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector himself, the life of the Palmolein Oil in question is mentioned in the following terms: Gopikrishna Imported RBD Palmolein Oil EoP/AP/ZIV/033/2005. Batch No.6: Date of manufacturing : 6/2007 Maximum Retail Price Rs.25/- (inclusive of all taxes) Best before 6 months from the date of packing Packed & manufactured by G.K.Enterprises Vedantha Agraharam Tirupathi (AP) 6. From the above information furnished in the complaint itself, it is clear that the Palmolein Oil in question was manufactured in June, 2007 and it would be best before six months from the date of packing i.e., 1-6-2007. In other words, the manufacturer himself indicated that the oil will remain intact in its quality for a period of six months from the date of packing and thereafter, there is no guarantee of its purity or quality after six months and the above information further by implication suggests that the oil cannot maintain its purity after the above period of six months. Despite the above information about the oil in question, the Food Inspector though lifted the sample on 28-09-2007 has taken time up to 28-1-2009 for giving notice under Section 13 (2) though he filed the complaint on 25-4-2008, which is also beyond the date of the life of the oil. In other words, the institution of prosecution against the petitioner including the issuance of notice under Section 13 (2) should have been completed before the expiry of six months from June, 2007 as the 2nd sample was to be analyzed within that period going by the information given on the lable and which is repeated in the complaint. 7 . The Food Inspector did not follow the time schedule. It can therefore be said that even if the second sample is now sent to the Central Food Laboratory by the petitioner, it cannot be said to be fit for analysis. 8. The above circumstances would show that the petitioner has lost his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act. That is a good ground for quashing the proceedings as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the same. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against this petitioner are quashed. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J rkk Dated: 24-11-2011