HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4373 of 2006 DATED 19.01.2010 Between: Mr.S.Bhooma Goud and another, … Petitioners And State rep. By the Public Prosecutor … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4373 of 2006 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the accused Nos.3 to 6 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.507/2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal relating to offence punishable under Section 16(I)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short, the Act). 2) The Food Inspector, Division-II, Kurnool filed complaint in the lower Court against A-1 to A-6. On 26.07.2001 at about 3.15 P.M the food inspector inspected kirana shop of A-1 at Rhithu Nagar of Nandyal Mandal and obtained samples of Gold Drop Vanaspathi packets of 200 ml each and sent one of the samples to the public analyst for analysis and report. On 11.09.2001 the food inspector received report of the public analyst dated 07.09.2001 opining that the sample does not conform to standards of red units in respect of Sesame oil and is therefore adulterated. After fulfilling further formalities, the food inspector filed complaint in the lower Court and thereafter, the Gazetted food inspector, local (health) authority, Kurnool District issued notice dated 26.11.2002 under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused informing them that complaint has been filed against them on 19.11.2002 in the lower Court and it was taken on file by the lower Court on 22.11.2002 and that in case the accused so desired they may file application before the Magistrate within 10 days after receipt of that notice for making analysis of another sample by Central Food Laboratory, Pune. 3) Thus, there is time gap of 16 months between 26.07.2001 when sample was obtained by the food inspector and 26.11.2002 when notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given by the complainant to the accused. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that this abnormal delay of 16 months without any valid reasons prejudiced the petitioners’ case because the petitioners have lost their valuable right of sending second sample to Central Food Laboratory and that even if any second sample is sent to Central Food Laboratory for second report, the sample may not be fit for analysis because of huge lapse of time. Except administrative delays, the complainant did not put forth any reasons for delay in filing charge sheet and in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act at least after receipt of public anaylist’s report on 11.09.2001. Even after receipt of report of the public analyst, there is delay of 14 months in filing charge sheet and in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act thereafter. Because of the delay in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, there can be no doubt of the accused suffering serious prejudice as it would be nugatory to exercise right of the accused to send second sample to Central Food Laboratory. Because of lapse of time, the sample may not be in the same condition in which it was obtained originally on 26.07.2001 and would have undergone changes in its composition leading to further adverse results. Because of lapse of huge time, the sample may not be in a fit and suitable condition for analysis. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the accused suffered serious prejudice because of huge delay of 16 months in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act after obtaining of the sample and particularly after obtaining of report of the public analyst. 4) The petitioners’ counsel relied upon two decisions of this Court in Reddy Shetty Srinivas V. State of A.P[1] and Mahavir Lohia V. State of Andhra Pradesh(un reported decision dated 10.10.2007 in Criminal Petition No.5320 of 2006) on this aspect relating to cases of samples of Vanaspathi. Having regard to my opinion expressed supra, I am in full agreement with the above previous decisions rendered by this Court. 5) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.507 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandyal in so far as the petitioners 1 to 4/A-3 to A-6 are concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 19, 2010 KSH [1] 2007(1) FOOD ADULTERATION CASES 200