HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6716 of 2009 Dated : 26.08.2009 Between : J.Koningston ….. Petitioner / A.2 a n d The State of A.P. ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6716 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the sole respondent. The petitioner is facing prosecution along with another under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in C.C.No.74 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu, Khammam District, in pursuance of inspection by the Food Inspector on 02.03.2000 at the premises of the second accused at which the first accused was salesman. The Food Inspector had taken samples of ‘laddus’ and sent the same for analysis by the Public Analyst, who found the same to be adulterated due to not conforming with the maximum permissible limit of dye content. The written consent of the Food Health Authority was obtained and the Prosecution was launched. The petitioner contends that he is not only innocent of the offence but also entitled to be exonerated as the laddus, which cannot be preserved for more than 90 days, became subject of the complaint only after 8 months of lifting the sample by which time no purpose would be served by sending the same for reanalysis. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was denied to him and he is entitled to acquittal. The facts are not in dispute and the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in M/s.Ruchi Infrastructure Limited v. State of A.P.[1] wherein the inordinate delay of more than 1 ½ years in producing the sample before the Court from the date of taking of sample was held to cause prejudice to the accused due to the likelihood of contents getting degenerated and decomposed. In the absence of any explanation for the abnormal delay, this Court concluded that the accused was deprived of his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and with reference to the earlier precedents on this aspect, the learned Judge concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing prosecution against the accused therein. The principle thereof squarely applies to the facts of the present case and as such the petitioner has to succeed. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C.No.74 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu, Khammam District, are quashed against the petitioner and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 26th August, 2009 SUR [1] 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 123 (A.P.)