THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7859 of 2010 ORDER: The present petition is filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda. The accused along with others were prosecuted for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the PFA Act”). On 30.06.2005 when the Food Inspector inspected the shop of A1, he was present and purchased Knorr Annapurna salt kept for human consumption after following due procedure and sent the same for analysis and it was opined that the salt is adulterated. The said salt said to have been manufactured by A3 and A2 is responsible for conducting of the business of A3 and A4 and A5 are the packaging units and all of them are liable for punishment. The claim of the petitioners/A2 and A3 is that the sample was taken in the month of November, 2005, the prosecution was initiated in the year 2009 and the life of the salt is only one year, even if it is sent for re-analysis when once the finding is disputed and, therefore, the defence of the petitioners is prejudiced. It is also pleaded that the manufacturer cannot be held liable for non-compliance of the standard of Iodine content of salt sold by the retailer. In view of the fact that Iodine content in sale keeps getting reduced when stored for long. It was also further pleaded that the purchase bills were not produced by A1 and, therefore, the accused cannot be held liable. It was also further pleaded that under Section 14-A of the PFA Act, the manufacturer cannot be prosecuted only on the information covered food without any other supporting purchase bills. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the proceedings are to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners was relied upon an order of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2616 of 2009, which was decided on 29.06.2009 along with other quash proceedings considering the provisions of the PFA Act. The prosecution was challenged on the ground that the Food Inspector has not secured any purchase bills concerning the samples from the respective seller and, therefore, the prosecution is to be quashed. This Court taking into consideration that except the lables on the product no other material was collected by the Food Inspector, consequently quashed the proceedings against the accused No.4 and 5 in this case. It was further noticed by this Court that it does not preclude the power to be exercised under Section 20-A of the PFA Act that during the trial if the Magistrate feels necessary to add necessary party. In view of the above decision, which also relates to the facts of this case and the facts as against the present petitioners being not different, the proceedings against the petitioners is quashed giving liberty to the lower Court to exercise the power under Section 20-A of the PFA Act, in case, if the Court feels necessary to add them. Even otherwise, there is a long delay in taking of the samples and also prosecution of the accused, which naturally defeats the valuable right of the accused-petitioners, which fact has to be kept in mind, if at all the accused are sought to be further added during the trial. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 01-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7859 of 2010 01-08-2011 MR