1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13744 of 2011 1.K.Marimuthu 2.N.Samuvel : Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs. State rep. by The Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli District. : Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to admit this quash petition on file, to call for the records from the lower Court in STC No.401/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, IV, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel for Ms.S.Ragaventhre For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R Seeking to quash the proceeding in STC No.401 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, the petitioner has come up with this petition. The said case has been instituted by way of a private complaint by the respondent alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ia) (a)(m) of the Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. According to the case of prosecution, the first petitioner is the seller of the packaged drinking water and the second respondent is the manufacturer of the same. When the water pocket was kept for sale at the shop of the first petitioner, the respondent took sample of the same on 25.08.2010 for the purpose of analysis. From the records, it could be seen that the analysis was made on 27.09.2010. Thereafter notice required under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner only on 24.08.2011. According to the petitioner, the expiry period of the content of the food material was 23.09.2010. Thus, according to the petitioner, the sample was analysed after the expiry period and the mandatory provision contained provision under Section 13(2) of the Act has also been violated. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is not in a position to dispute the above factual aspects. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. In my considered opinion, both the grounds raised by the petitioner are sustainable. Since the analysis itself was done after the expiry period, when the food material had become unfit for human consumption, no weightage could be attached to the analysis report. Secondly, the mandatory provision contained under Section 13(2) of the Act has not been complied with. As I have already stated that though the analysis report is dated 27.09.2010, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued only after 13 months, i.e. only on 24.08.2011. 5. For these reasons, in my considered opinion, there will be no purpose to allow the prosecution to continue further. In such view of the matter, the case is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in STC No.401 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, is quashed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli. 2. -Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3. The Food Inspector, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRL.O.P.(MD).No.13744 of 2011 03.11.2011 RR RJ/16.11.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/