HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1850 of 2007 DATED 05.02.2010 Between: Bukka Laxmaiah, … Petitioner And State rep. By the Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1850 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 2nd accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.377/2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahabubabad relating to offence punishable under Sections 16(I)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short, the Act). 2) In this case, the complainant/Food Inspector, Division-I, Karimnagar District, inspected A-1’s shop by name M/s.Ramu Kiranam near R.T.C bus stand, Mahabubabad on 26.05.2004 at 3.00 P.M and purchased necessary samples of double filtered ground nut oil, Priya Gold Brand and prepared sample packets and despatched one of the sample packets to the public analyst on 27.05.2004 for analysis. After analysis, the public analyst, Hyderabad sent report dated 16.06.2004 opining that the sample does not conform to the standard of Bellier’s test(turbidity temperature-Acetic acid method) and that it contains castor oil and is therefore adulterated. The said report was received with covering letter on 23.06.2004. The Director, Institute of Prevention Medicine, Public Health Laboratory and State Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad, gave sanction orders for prosecution of A-1 and A-2 vide Rc.No.10518/F6/2004 dated 29.12.2004. Thereupon, the complainant filed the complaint before the lower Court on 08.05.2006 and it was taken on file by the lower Court on 04.08.2006. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that because of filing of the complaint nearly after 2 years and taking the complaint on file by the lower Court three months thereafter, the petitioner/A-2 who is manufacturer of the food item suffered serious prejudice as he lost opportunity of sending second sample to Central Food Laboratory for second analysis questioning report of the public analyst. Thus, A-2 has lost valuable piece of defence on his side because of the delay on the part of the Food Inspector in this case. Even though sanction was given by the State Food (Health) Administration on 29.12.2004, the Food Inspector took his own time to file the complaint before the lower Court and filed the same on 08.05.2006. As per notings on the sample packet, the food product was packed in May, 2004 and it is best for use before four months. Thus, shelf life of the sample is four months from May, 2004. After September, 2004 the food product loses its original composition and gets spoiled. Therefore, after September, 2004 even if any sample is sent for second analysis, no useful purpose will be served as the second sample will not be fit for analysis. In this case, even by the date of sanction order in December, 2004 and by the date of presentation of complaint in the lower Court by the Food Inspector in May, 2006, shelf life of the food product had expired. In that view of the matter, when the petitioner had lost valuable piece of defence because of lapses on the part of the Food Inspector and the sanctioning authority, I find that this is a fit case for granting relief to the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.377 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mahabubabad in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 05, 2010 KSH HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1850 of 2007 February 05, 2010 KSH