THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3730 of 2009 Date:30th November, 2011 Between: Chintala Ramarao S/o.Appala Swamy ..... Petitioner/Accused AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents/Complainants *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3730 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Chintala Ramarao in C.C.No.388 of 2008 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannavaram, Krishna District, to quash the proceeding therein. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are: The petitioner is the proprietor of Madhura Ghee business concern. He took lease of one Reema Food Processing Company at ALEIP (Andhra Ladies Enterprises of Industrial Products) in Plot No.127, Surampalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal. He started preparing ghee and vending the same at Hyderabad and at some other places. The accusation made against him is that he mixed Dalda in the butter and thereby selling the adulterated ghee. On receiving the information of sale of adulterated ghee, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, surprised the business premises of the petitioner and seized 18 bags of raw butter each weighing about 55 k.gs., 22 tines of Dalda tins each weighing 15 k.gs., 77 fake ghee tins each weighing about 15 k.gs., some empty tins, 180 Nos. of half k.g. packets, 300 nos. of 100 grams packets containing a label as “Madhura Ghee Fresh & Pure”. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gannavaram P.S., registered a case in Crime No.283 of 2007 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, the Station House Officer, Gannavaram P.S., examined about 8 witnesses and recorded their statements in part-II of the Case Diary. He also sent the sample to the Chief Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, for analysis and thereupon, the Chief Public Analyst, tested the sample and submitted a report opining that the sample is adulterated. After completing the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gannavaram P.S. laid a charge-sheet before V Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannavaram. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C.C.No.388 of 2008. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the accused seeking the relief stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub- Inspector of Police is not competent to initiate proceedings for adulteration of the ghee and it is the Food Inspector who is competent to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. A further submission has been made that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, various safeguards are provided to the accused, such as getting the second sample tested in the Central Food Laboratory. In the absence of the petitioner not allowing such right, the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of final report filed by the Station House Officer are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents/State submits that the Station House Officer sent the sample to the Chief Public Analyst, who tested the sample and found it not according to specifications and thus, the same is branded as adulterated one, in which case, prosecution launched against the petitioner can not be faulted. 6. The charge-sheet averments indicate that the petitioner is prosecuted for adulteration of ghee. For prosecuting the accused for adulteration of ghee, he is required to be given an opportunity to get the second sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory. The charge-sheet does not indicate that the Station House Officer, Gannavaram P.S., collected three samples of ghee in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Without following the due procedure contemplated in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the Rules thereunder, lifting the sample and filing the complaint basing on the public analyst report cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceeding against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.388 of 2008 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:30th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.3730 of 2009 Date:30th November, 2011