THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No: 4806 of 2008 Date: 01st April, 2011 Between : Tadikamalla Hanumantha Rao and another … Petitioners A n d State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No: 4806 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri. G. Naresh Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Sri. Srimannarayana, appearing for Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners herein are accused in a food adulteration case i.e. C.C.No. 245 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chilakaluripet. The food article alleged to have been adulterated is Sugar Boiled Confectionery. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that on their application, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory at Pune but so far no report is received from that laboratory and therefore, the whole proceedings in the case are bad and should be quashed. 4. A report was called for from the concerned Court regarding the stage of the case and about the receipt of the report from the Central Food Laboratory. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, who is stated to be now in full additional charge of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, has sent a report dated 30-03-2011. In the said report, it is stated that the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory by the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge through its letter in Dis. No.338 dated 11-03- 2003 but, so far no report has been received. It is also stated that the Central Food Laboratory, Pune addressed letters to the Munsif Magistrate Court, Chilakaluripet (now Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet), vide its letters dated 04-04-2008 and 30-05- 2008, requested the said Court to send a copy of form 1 and specimen signature of the Court used to seal the container and the same are in the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Chilakaluripet, but no reply has been given to the Central Food Laboratory regarding the above said letter. 5. It may be noted that according to Section 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Court should not proceed with the case or continue the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution until the report from the Central Food Laboratory is received. Thus, this is a legal bar which weighs in favour of the petitioners in the circumstances of this case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in view of the above legal bar and having regard to the fact that the food article is a Sugar Boiled Confectionary, if no analysis is done by the Central Food Laboratory till now, there would be no point in doing analysis now as the food article may not be fit for analysis now. 7. The above contention may sound apparently forceful, and further this petition which is of 2008 is kept pending all these three years here. The question is whether this Court should interfere now and quash the proceedings. 8. On the above question, it may be noted that it is not known what has transpired in the Central Food Laboratory and why the report has not been sent and what steps were taken. All these aspects can be more effectively looked into only by the concerned JFCM Court before which the case is pending. To repeat, the case cannot go on without report as per the legal bar contained in Section 13(2)(d). In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Court should not interfere in this matter and leave the matter to be decided by the Court before which the case is pending. 9. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the Court before which this case is pending shall look into the matter and take all necessary steps to find out as to why the Central Food Laboratory could not send its report and if it has not analysed the food article in question till now, what can be the consequence of such non- analysis in time. Till the Central Food Laboratory analysis report is received or information is received from the Central Food Laboratory that the food article cannot be analysed, the Court shall not proceed further in the matter. After receiving the above information, the Court shall again issue summons to both the petitioners depending upon the information obtained from the Central Food Laboratory and decide the matter according to law. 10. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. The Court before which this case is pending is also directed to submit report within a month as to what steps it has taken on the administrative side to find out what went wrong in sending the second sample to Central Food Laboratory and who is responsible for the same. The District Judge, Guntur shall look into the matter and take appropriate action for any lapses noticed on the administrative side in the matter. _________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Date: 01st April, 2011 KSM