THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7140 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 are accused of offences punishable under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) read with Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, the Rules). The Food Inspector took sample of Mutton Biriyani in Hotel Ashik, in which A1 was transacting the business and of which A2 is the proprietor. The sample was taken on 24.10.2008. After analyzing one of the samples, the Public Analyst gave report dated 25.11.2008 opining that the sample contains added synthetic colour and is therefore adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the Director on 18.02.2009, the Food Inspector filed complaint in the lower Court on 06.06.2009 and served notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused on 03.07.2009. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is unexplained delay of nearly 7 ½ months in filing the complaint after lifting the sample and that the second sample would not be fit for second analysis by Central Food Laboratory and it amounts to negation of valuable right of defence to the accused. It is further contended that there is no standard prescribed by the Act or Rules for Mutton Biriyani which is a cooked food and that there was no quantification of presence of prohibited colour in the sample. It is not the prosecution case that the sample of Mutton Biriyani is not in conformity with the prescribed standards. The adulteration alleged herein is addition of prohibited synthetic food colour i.e. sunset yellow. Rule 28 of the Rules contain list of permitted food colours in Foods. Rule 29 prohibits use of the said permitted synthetic food colours, except in the case of items of food listed in Sub-Rules (a) to (h) thereof. Food item like Mutton Biriyani is not there in the list of items mentioned in Rule 29. Therefore, irrespective of any quantification of the same, mere presence of the prohibited synthetic food colour attracts the liability under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Act. 2. The Food Inspector added forty drops of formuline to each sample bottle as a preservative. Even if the food item is affected, there will not be degeneration of synthetic food colour namely, sunset yellow. In that view of the matter, no right of the accused to secure valuable defence by way of sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, is negated in this case. There are no valid or legal grounds for quashing the proceedings in this case. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:15.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7140 of 2009 Dt:15.12.2011 ysk