THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.583 OF 2004 DATED: 26-03-2010 Between: The Food Inspector, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, Khammam. ..... APPELLANT And Yermala Srinivasa Reddy & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 08-10-2002, in C.C.No.372 of 1999 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, wherein the respondents herein-A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 16(1) (a) (i), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) and were acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. 2. None appeared for the appellant-State. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents-A1 to A3. Perused the records. 3. The Food Inspector, Khammam filed a complaint alleging that on 16-09-1998 he along with his Attender visited Srislakshmi Super Market at Khammam and found A1 transacting the business and in the presence of P.W.2, a punch witness, inspected the shop of A1 and found stock of Amla Pickles, stocked for sale for human consumption. Suspecting the same to be adulterated, he purchased 900 gms of Amla pickle for the purpose of sample, after following the prescribed procedure. On analysis by the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be containing moulds and therefore adulterated. Subsequently after obtaining sanction from the competent authority for prosecution, the complaint was filed before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. 4. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 16(1) (a) (i), 7(i) and 2(ia) (m) of the Act. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to 36. The accused No.2 was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate held that the accused were not given an opportunity to send the sample for second analysis to the Central Food Laboratory which caused any amount of prejudice to the defence and therefore found the accused not guilty and acquitted them of the offence. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present appeal. 7. It is not disputed and also admitted by P.W.1 in the cross examination that he has drawn the sample on 16-09-1998 and the subject-food item was manufactured in June, 1998 and the analyst report was issued on 01-05-1999 and the complaint was filed in September, 1999. It is also not disputed and is also borne out by the label-Ex.P.10 affixed on the bottle of the subject-food item that the shelf life period of the item was only one year. The subject-item being a food item, it is needless to state that it would be best for use or for analysis only before the shelf life period gets expired. The food item was manufactured in June, 1998 and the complaint was filed in September, 1999 i.e. about three months after the expiry of the shelf life period of one year. The accused are entitled for an opportunity of getting the sample re-examined by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act after a notice is served on them. Subsequent to filing of the complaint, even by the date of filing of the complaint, the shelf life period of the food item has expired long back and because of the delay in filing the complaint the accused are deprived of the valuable right of seeking re-examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. 8. Having regard to the nature of the subject- food item, the delay in filing the complaint would certainly result in decay and decomposition, rendering the same unfit for analysis. The denial of the statutory right to the accused for second examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act does not cause any amount of prejudice to the defence of the accused. 9. In Naresh Kumar Kedia V. Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and others[1], the proceedings are quashed when the prosecution was launched with a delay of nearly one year eight months on the ground that valuable right of the accused has been denied because of the delay. In Konda Suryanarayana and others Vs. State of A.P.[2], the proceedings were quashed observing that no useful purpose would be served by sending the sample for analysis after lapse of two years nine months. In Vinod Namviar, Regional Sales Manager (Foods) & others vs. State of A.P., rep. By Food Inspector[3], the proceedings were quashed when there was a delay of 27 months in launching the complaint. In Neghraj V. The State (Delhi Administration) & another[4], it was held that ‘there is no justification for launching the prosecution with a delay of two years after a sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst.’ 10. In the circumstances and in view of the long and unexplained delay in filing the complaint, which had resulted in depriving the accused of exercising their valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act for re-analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory, resulting in serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, the trial Court has rightly held the accused not guilty of the offence with which they are charged. The impugned order of acquittal does not call for interference by this Court. There are absolutely no merits in the appeal. 11. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th March, 2010. Tsy [1] 2006 (1) FAC 104 [2] 2006 (1) FAC 157 [3] 2006 (1) FAC 235 [4] 1980 (2) FAC 191