IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.7654 of 2009 Between: Mahankali Rama Narasimham & 2 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another .... Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.7654 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.536 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu, Khamma district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents-State. Perused the record. 3. The Food Inspector, Division II, Khammam, filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu, alleging the offences under Section 7(I)&2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in CC No.536 of 2007. According to the prosecution, on 23.11.2005 at about 3 p.m. the Food Inspector, Division II, Khammam, inspected the shop of the first petitioner-A.1 by name ‘M/s M.Rama Narasimham Kirana & General Stores’, Kamepally and found the petitioner-A.1 doing business and suspecting the food product, namely, New Boost (Malt based food) in sealed bottles, kept for sale to public for human consumption to be adulterated, lifted the samples of the said food item after following the procedure prescribed and on analysis of the sample, it was found that the same was adulterated as it does not conform to the standard of Coliform count and therefore adulterated. Subsequently, after obtaining written consent from the Director, Food (Health) Authority, the complaint was lodged. 4. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that on account of inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint, the petitioners are denied of their valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act for re- analysis of the sample. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.210 of 2008 before the learned Magistrate under Section 13(2) of the Act for re-analysis of the sample but no report is received from the Central Food Laboratory. 5. It is not disputed that the first petitioner’s shop was inspected on 23.11.2005 and lifted the sample and the same was sent to the Public Analyst on 24.11.2005. The Public Analyst has sent his report on 02.01.2006. The written consent for launching the prosecution was obtained on 14.12.2006 and the complaint was filed on 09.03.2007. Thus the complaint was filed one year four months after lifting the sample and more than one year two months after receipt of the Analyst Report. The subject food item is a primary food, namely New Boost (Malt Based Food) and as per the label declaration found on the container, the shelf life of the food item was 12 months from the date of packing. Admittedly, the complaint was filed nearly one year four months after lifting of the sample. 6. In ‘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 Vs. 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. In ‘Vinod Namviar, Regional Sales Manager (Foods) & others vs. 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 vs. 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. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions and having regard to the fact that the subject food item is New Boost (Malt Based Food), which is primary food item, the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint would certainly deprive the valuable right of the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the opportunity for re-analysis has been lost because of the expiry of the shelf life period of the sample long prior to filing of the complaint. To that extent, the defence of the petitioners-accused is prejudiced. 8. Under those circumstances, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 in CC No.536 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu, Khammam district. 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 CC No.536 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu against the petitioners and they are accordingly quashed. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.11.2010 bss [1] 2006 (1) FAC 104 [2] 2006 (1) FAC 157 [3] 2006 (1) FAC 235 [4] 1980 (2) FAC 191