HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2048 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted the accused of the oﬀence under Section 16(1)(a)(i)/7(i) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) for contravention of Section 2(ia) (j) of the Act and Rules 20 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. The accused was running fair price shop No.632 at Bakaram, Hyderabad. PW.1 who is the Food Inspector obtained sample of Toor Dal from a loose gunny bag with label declaration kept in the fair price shop and sent the same to the public analyst for analysis and report. The public analyst sent Ex.P.15 report to the eﬀect that the sample is adulterated as it contains prohibited synthetic food colour tetrazine. The lower Court recorded acquittal on two grounds, namely, that there is avoidable and inordinate delay in ﬁling the complaint and serving copy of public analyst report on the accused and that the accused was only selling the product which is entrusted to him for sale by Andhra Pradesh Civil Supplies Corporation. When the Food Inspector obtained sample of Toor dal from fair price shop in a gunny bag containing label declaration, the complaint should have been ﬁled not only against the accused but also against Civil Supplies Corporation which supplied the item for sale in fair price shop. In view of label declaration, which discloses source of supply of the item to the accused, Section 14(1) of the Act may come to the rescue of the accused. Sample in this case was taken by the Food Inspector on 29.08.1998. Public analyst report Ex.P.15 is dated 24.09.1998. There is inordinate delay in obtaining written consent from the Director and it was obtained on 04.02.2002. Even thereafter, there is inordinate and avoidable delay on the part of the Food Inspector in ﬁling the complaint in Court. The complaint was ﬁled before the Magistrate on 10.01.2003. It is only thereafter notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given by the Food Inspector to the accused. The said notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given in about ﬁve years of taking the sample from his shop. There will be natural decay and deterioration of Toor dal in these ﬁve years. Purpose of giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act becomes futile as the accused lost valuable opportunity of establishing his defence by sending second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. In these circumstances, the lower Court rightly found against the prosecution. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with ﬁnding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 3rd December, 2011. PNV