IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3613 OF 2010. Date:28.04.2010 Between:- Putnala Sangameshwar ..Petitioner/A-1 And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner/A-1 is accused of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) in C.C.No.217 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banswada, Nizamabad District on the ground that sample of groundnut oil obtained by the Food Inspector from A-1’s shop and which was analysed by the Public Analyst was found not conforming to the standard of ‘Bellier’s test (turbidity temperature-Acetic acid method)’ and that it does not conform to Section 2 IX(e), as it claimed that it contains high MUFA helps in reducing bad cholesterol (LDL) and ensures healthy heart. The Public Analyst further opines that the sample is, therefore, adulterated and misbranded. 2. Two questions are raised by the petitioner’s counsel in this petition. The first one is relating to period of limitation for filing the case against the petitioner. The sample was obtained on 22.09.2004. On 03.11.2004, the Public Analyst’s report dated 30.10.2004 was received. Complaint in this case was filed on 24.06.2008, after a period of more than three years. Therefore, it is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. Secondly, it is contended that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given to the petitioner subsequent to filing of the complaint in the lower Court i.e., after 24.06.2008, nearly four years after the sample was collected and that shelf life of the subject sample expired by then and that it would be a futile exercise for the petitioner to seek permission of the Magistrate to send second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune because the sample will not be fit for analysis. The sample taken in this case is a food product whose shelf life is around six months from the date of manufacture or packing. 3. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/A-1 did not take any steps before the Magistrate for sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and that it is only the Central Food Laboratory which can certify whether the second sample is fit for analysis or not and that without taking steps before the Magistrate for sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, it is not open to the petitioner to file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and to question delay in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and that the matter is now referred to a Division Bench of this Court on this aspect. 4. But this case has another angle to be looked into. The accused Nos.2 and 3 in the same C.C.No.217 of 2008 filed Crl.P.No.5526 of 2009 in this Court on the same grounds as contained herein and this Court, by order dated 27.07.2009, quashed proceedings in this case in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. In case the present Crl.P. ends otherwise, an anomalous situation will follow to the effect that there would be two conflicting decisions in the same case, one in favour of two of the accused and one against one of the accused. To avoid the said situation, judicial propriety requires that the case against the petitioner/A-1 also should receive the same result as before. 5. Hence, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.217 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banswada, Nizamabad District in so far as the petitioner/A- 1 is concerned. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 28th April 2010 AMD