HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.9418 AND 9420 OF 2010 Date: 05-10-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9418 OF 2010 Between: Karri Narasimhamurthy and two others. --- Petitioners/ A-1 to A-3. And Food and Sanitory Inspector, Razole, The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9420 OF 2010 Between: Karri Narasimhamurthy and two others. --- Petitioners/ A-1 to A-3. And Food and Sanitory Inspector, Razole, The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.9418 AND 9420 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are filed by the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos.55 of 2003 and C.C. No.66 of 2003, on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Magistrate’), East Godavari District. Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in both the cases and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The complaint has been filed by the Food Inspector, Razole, alleging that, the first petitioner is the owner of the Ice Parlour dealing with carbonated water (Pepsi Cola) and the second petitioner who is the proprietor of Mangena General Agencies, Lakkavaram, supplied the said Pepsicola to the first petitioner and the third petitioner is a Firm carrying on its business in the name and style of ‘M/s Pearl Bottling Private Limited, Visakhapatnam’ are selling the adulterated Pepsicola and the petitioners are therefore liable to be punished under Section 16(1) (a) (i), 7 (i) & (v) and 2 (ia) (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. According to the complaint, the Food Inspector, Razole, took the sample in both the cases on 26-07-2002 and sent them to the Public Analyst, for analysis on 27-07-2002 and the Public Analyst gave his report stating his opinion, ‘that the sample does not confirm to the standards of total plate count and molds and therefore it is adulterated’. After receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the complaint, the date of manufacture of the said product is 08-07-2002 and the contents in the bottles have to be used within six months from the date of manufacture. Therefore, the complaint has to be filed within six months from the date of manufacturing of the contents, so as to enable the petitioner to seek permission to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. The learned counsel would further submit, aggrieved by the report of the public analyst, the third petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (2) of the Act, to send to the sample for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory on 10-03-2003 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 447 of 2003 and 448 of 2003. The learned Magistrate allowed the petitions on 04-04-2003 and 31-03-2003 respectively permitting to send the samples to the Central Food Laboratory. Accordingly, the samples were sent to the Central Food Laboratory on 31-03-2003 and so far the learned Magistrate has not received the report. As per Section 13(2) (b) of the Act, on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the local authority shall after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample was taken, shall send a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the said persons informing them that if they so desire, they may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the local authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the instant case also, the sample was sent on 27-07-2002, thereafter the report dated 28-08-2002 was received but charge sheet is filed on 04-02-2003. Therefore, it is a clear case, wherein the petitioners in both the cases are deprived of the right provided under Section 13 (2) of the Act, to send the samples to the Central Food Laboratory within the prescribed period. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that the complaints in both the cases have been filed in the year 2003 and so far these cases have not been disposed. Considering the facts and circumstances stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that even if the trial takes place, no useful purpose would be served because there is apparent violation to the right of the petitioners provided under Section 13 (2) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, entire proceedings in C.C. Nos.55 of 2003 and 66 of 2003 on the file of Learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole, East Godavari District, are hereby quashed. Both the Criminal Petitions are allowed accordingly. ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 05-10-2010 Dsh.