THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11551 OF 2010 DATED:30-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.109 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the records. 3. Respondent-Food Inspector, Anantapur inspected ‘Gayathri Milk Dairy’, Rudrampet village, Anantapur District of which petitioner is the Proprietor and filed a complaint against the petitioner-A2 and another alleging offence under Section 7(i) and 2 (ia) (m) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) before the learned Additional Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same as C.C.No.109 of 2010. According to the prosecution, on 11-04-2008 at about 2.00 p.m. the Food Inspector inspected the ‘Gayathri Milk Dairy’, Rudrampet village, Anantapur District of which petitioner is the Proprietor and seized three milk packets suspecting the same to be adulterated and sent one of the samples for analysis and the public analyst gave a report to the effect that the sample-milk is adulterated as it does not conform to the standards of milk fat. 4. The only ground on which petitioner seeks quashing of further proceedings in C.C.No.109 of 2010 is that on account of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, his valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act for seeking re-analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory is lost. 5. Admittedly, the sample of the subject-food item, namely milk, was lifted on 11-04-2008 and one sample was sent to the public analyst on 12-04-2008. The report of the public analyst was received on 21-05-2008 and the written consent of the authority was obtained on 04-11-2008. The complaint was filed on 03-02-2009. Thus, the complaint was lodged about nine months after lifting of the sample. 6. I n NARESH KUMAR KEDIA v. DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AND OTHERS[1], the proceedings are quashed when the prosecution was launched with a delay of nearly one year eight months on the ground of valuable right of the accused has been denied because of the delay. In KONDA SURYANARAYANA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF A.P.,[2], the proceedings were quashed observing that no useful purpose would be served by sending the sample for analysis after lapse of two years nine months. I n VINOD NAMVIAR, REGIONAL SALES MANAGER (FOODS) & OTHERS v. STATE OF A.P., REP. BY FOOD INSPECTOR[3], the proceedings were quashed when there was a delay of 27 months in launching the complaint. In NEGHRAJ v. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) & ANOTHER[4], it was held that ‘there is no justification for launching the prosecution with a delay of two years after a sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst.’ 7. Having regard to the fact that the subject-food item is milk, there is every force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, the sample of the subject- food item rendered itself useless and unfit for re-analysis on account of the decomposition or deterioration in its contents. There is absolutely no reason or explanation offered by the prosecution for the inordinate delay at every stage before filing the complaint. Such delay of more than eight months has certainly resulted in deprivation of the valuable right of the petitioner in seeking re-analysis of the sample under Section 13(2) of the Act and therefore causing serious prejudice to her defence. 8. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings against the petitioner-A2 in C.C.No.109 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur. It is therefore, held to be a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.109 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur against the petitioner and they are accordingly quashed. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2010 Tsy [1] 2006 (1) FAC 104 [2] 2006 (1) FAC 157 [3] 2006 (1) FAC 235 [4] 1980 (2) FAC 191