THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5444 of 2011 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.371 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal for the offence under Sections 7(1)2(ia)(m) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). The petitioners are accused 2 and 3 and the case was instituted in the year 2005. Milk was said to have been supplied by A2 and A3 and a sample was said to have been taken from the accused and it was sent for analysis and the analyst found that it was adulterated. The only ground the petitioners want to be quashed that no notice under Section 13 of the Act has been served on the petitioners as contemplated under the Act. Evidently, the service of notice under Section 13 of the Act arises only after filing of the prosecution case. Therefore, such fact need not be mentioned in the complaint. The accused cannot be presumed to be not knowing the criminal prosecution for the last six years, when the other accused, who is no other than the agent and to whom the milk has been supplied and found to be adulterated, attended the proceedings. The petition is conspicuously silent as to when the petitioners appeared before the lower Court. Furthermore, no explanation is given in the petition as to why the accused kept quiet for several years. The violation of Sections 11 (4) and 13(2) of the Act, as complained by the petitioners, can only be decided during the trial. The prejudices, if any, caused to the petitioners, can only be decided after taking the evidence. There is no dispute that the milk produced by the petitioners is being sold by the 1st accused and the samples were drawn from that milk. Whether there was prejudice or not is a question of fact, when once if the analyst report is served on the person, from whom the food article is seized. There is inordinate delay in filing this application and at this stage, it cannot be entertained and it is quite clear that the petitioners want to delay the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners have kept quiet for several years without complaining about the above violations. The question, as to whether the petitioners have got knowledge or not, is a different aspect to be considered. The question only raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which contemplates re-analysis on the application of the accused, is not given. It can only be proved or spoken by the evidence of the Food Inspector when he goes into the box. Therefore, at this stage, merely on the allegation of the accused-petitioners that they were not served notice under Section 13 of the Act, the proceedings cannot be quashed. It is to be mentioned that the prosecution for food adulteration is a serious offence and when milk products are said to have been supplied, the proceedings cannot be quashed, on appreciation of a fact, which is still to be established by the evidence and by mere assertion of the petitioner. It is not the rarest of the rare cases, where the proceedings to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 08-07-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5444 of 2011 DATE: 08-07-2011 MR