IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.10596 of 2010 Between: Sai Agency, rep, by its Proprietor Sri B.S.V.Shivaramaiah, Pallkollu … Petitioner-A.2 And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.10596 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner-A.2 in STC No.14 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The Food Inspector, Eluru, inspected the shop of the petitioner on 22.02.2000 and took sample of Kisan Annapurna Iodized salt, suspecting the same to be adulterated and on analysis, the sample was found containing iron filing and therefore, adulterated. After receiving written consent for prosecution from the Director, Food Health Authority on 02.08.2002, the Food Inspector filed a complaint on 27.08.2002 against the petitioner-A.2 and others and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in STC No.14 of 2002 for the offences under Section 2(ia)(b), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of P.F. A. Act. 4. Earlier, A.3 and A.4 filed Criminal Petition No.5380 of 2002 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against them in STC No.14 of 2002. This Court by order dated 31.12.2002 allowed the said petition and quashed further proceedings against A.3 and A.4, inter-alia on the ground that there was delay in launching prosecution after expiry of the shelf-life period of food article. A.3 is the nominee and A.4 is the Company of manufacturer of subject food item. The present petitioner-A.2 is only a distributing agency and he has nothing to do with the manufacturing process. The sample was taken on 22.02.2000 and the prosecution was launched 2½ years later on 27.08.2002. The reasons mentioned in the order dated 31.12.2002 in Crl.P.No.5380 of 2002 while quashing further proceedings against A.3 and A.4 hold good in respect of the petitioner-A.2 as well. The present case is virtually covered by the order passed in Crl.P.No.5380 of 2002. 5. In the circumstances and in view of the orders dated 31.12.2002 in Crl.P.No.5380 of 2002, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioner-A.2 in STC No.14 of 2002 are not sustainable and they are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.11.2010 bss