HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2568 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short, the Act). A1 is Plant Supervisor, A2 is Managing Director of A3 company namely Ammireddy Oils Limited, Anaparthi, East Godavari District. Food Inspector, East Godavari District, obtained sample of refined rice bran oil from an open container in the factory premises on 09.01.2006 at 02:00 PM. He sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst for analysis on 10.01.2006. The Public Analyst after analysis sent report dated 20.02.2006 to the Local (Health) Authority opining that the sample does not conform to the standard of acid value and is therefore adulterated as per Section 2 (ia) (m) of the Act. The Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, gave written consent under Section 20 (1) of the Act for launching prosecution against A1 to A3 on 20.09.2006. Food Inspector filed the complaint in the lower Court on 27.10.2006. After taking cognizance of the complaint for the above offence by the Magistrate, Food Inspector issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act to the accused on 10.11.2006. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is inordinate delay in launching the prosecution and in obtaining written consent from the Director and the said delay is not explained properly and validly and that because of the said delay the accused had lost their valuable right of defence by way of sending second sample to Central Food Laboratory for second analysis and report, because by the date of service of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, shelf-life of the sample product became expired. It is contended by the petitioners counsel that shelf-life of an edible oil like refined rice bran oil is only six months. Since the sample product is an edible oil called refined rice bran oil it holds good for a period of six months only and thereafter because of lapse of time, there is bound to be change in chemical properties of the sample product. The adulteration found by the Public Analyst in this case is excess acid value than prescribed in the standard. Because of passage of time, acid value in an edible oil is bound to increase and even if the second sample is sent to the Central Food Laboratory after a lapse of nearly one year, the sample is not going to be tested in the same condition in which it was obtained by the Food Inspector one year back. In such an event, no purpose will be served even if the second sample is sent to Central Food Laboratory for second analysis and report. Therefore, this Court finds that valuable right of defence of the accused is lost because of delay in obtaining written consent from the Director and consequently delay in launching the prosecution and issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. In that view of the matter proceedings in the lower Court against the accused are vitiated. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.669 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Anaparthi, East Godavari District. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2011 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2568 OF 2010 December 29, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDRABAD Dated: 29.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2568 OF 2010 Between: Dwarampudi Venkat Reddy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: