HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6900 of 2009 Dated : 02.09.2009 Between : 1) Kalattoor Ramesh 2) B.manikyala Rao ….. Petitioners V. The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6900 of 2009 O R D E R : Heard Sri P.Kalyan Ram, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. The petitioners are facing prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the Act’) along with the second accused in C.C.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. They contend that the samples were collected on 08.12.2005 while the Public Analyst report that the sample of ‘Horlicks’ sent was adulterated was dated 18.01.2006. They further contend that after obtaining permission from the Food Health Authority on 07.02.2007 the complaint was filed into Court only on 13.12.2007 and that the complaint was filed after 24 months from the date of lifting the samples and 10 months after the report of the public analyst. The petitioners further contend that the shelf life of the food article is only 12 months and that the food article in question manufactured in October, 2005, had its shelf life expired 14 months prior to the filing of the complaint into Court. Therefore, the valuable right of the petitioners to have the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory was obviously lost. The petitioners also relied on the orders passed in Crl.P.No.4518 of 2008 which was filed by the second accused in the same case and which was allowed on 20.07.2009 following the earlier precedents from this Court about the adverse impact of the denial of the right under Section 13 (2) of the Act. The conclusions, which were arrived at in respect of the second accused, apply on facts and in law with equal force in respect of the present petitioners also as the factual back ground of the case is not in dispute. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to succeed on the same ground. In the result, the further proceedings in C.C.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, against the petitioners are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 2nd September, 2009 sur