HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5360 of 2008 Dated : 24.08.2009 Between : Banda Radha Kishan ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5360 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, 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 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the Act’) in pursuance of an inspection by the Food Inspector at his premises on 14.04.2005 and lifting of samples of ‘Aqua Manikanta Packed Drinking Water’ in 250 ml packets produced by him. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst opined that the sample did not have the certification of Bureau of Indian Standards and also did not conform to the standard of Aerobic Microbial count. On the opinion of the Public Analyst that the sample was misbranded and adulterated, the Food Inspector obtained the written consent of the Public Health Authority on 14.10.2005 and filed the complaint on 08.12.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner along with copy of the public analyst report on 03.12.2005 and he filed an application on 12.12.2005 before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.401 of 2005 in C.C.No.362 of 2005 with a request to send the second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 23.03.2006, but till filing of the criminal petition, for about 3 years, the second sample was not sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The valuable right of the accused under Section 13 (2) of the Act is thus lost, the shelf life of the sample being only six months and the purpose of sending it for analysis for the second time is also lost obviously by efflux of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also filed the application made by him for issuance of certified copies of the property form and report of analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, and on such application filed on 19.08.2009, the Court made an endorsement of return stating that on verification of records, it is found that “no case property of second sample is deposited by the Local Health Authority, Adilabad, before the Court and that there was no report in the record of the Central Food Laboratory as the property was not deposited and not sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and report”. The written endorsement made by the Court on 20.08.2009 thus makes it clear that the right of the accused to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory was denied to him and the continuance of the prosecution under such circumstances will be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petitioner has to succeed. In the result, the further proceedings in C.C.No.362 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Luxettipet, against the petitioner are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 24th August, 2009 SUR