THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2099 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Gazetted Food Inspector, Kurnool … Appellant AND Sri Vemula Bhasker … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2099 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) on the ground of sending notice under Section 13(2) of the Act after institution of the complaint with delay. 2. PW1/Food Inspector obtained sample of jaggery from kirana shop of the accused at Dhone on 24.08.2001. He sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst on 25.08.2001 for analysis. After analysis, the Public Analyst sent report dated 20.09.2001 opining that the sample of jaggery does not conform to permissible limits of Sulphur dioxide and is therefore adulterated. Subsequently, the Director gave written consent under Section 20 of the Act on 02.05.2002. PW1 filed the complaint before the Magistrate on 10.06.2002 and thereafter he was transferred. PW2 is the successor of PW1. PW2 resubmitted the complaint before the Magistrate on 19.08.2002. After the complaint was taken on file by the Magistrate for the above offence against the accused, PW2 sent notice to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act. The said notice was served on the accused on 17.09.2000. There is time gap of nearly thirteen months in filing the complaint and in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused. Shelf life of jaggery expires by that date. There will be chemical changes in the food sample because of lapse of 13 months. The said chemical changes include variation of contents of Sulphur dioxide. Therefore, no purpose will be served even if the second sample is sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis to have the second report. Because of the delay, the said valuable defence of the accused becomes frustrated. Therefore, the lower Court rightly held that the trial of the case is vitiated because of the delay. 3. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:20.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2099 of 2004 Dt:20.12.2011 ysk