THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6711 OF 2008 Date: 11.11.2011 Between: Punugu Ananda Rao and another …..Petitioners And The Food Inspector, Gudur Municipality, Gudur, Nellore District and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6711 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners’ counsel and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The two petitioners herein are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.312 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudur, Nellore District (trial court). They filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the aforesaid case. 3. The offences alleged against them in the aforesaid case are those punishable under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(j) read with Section 16(1-A)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short Act) for selling adulterated kaju flower sweet. The charge of adulteration relates to usage of excess synthetic colour. The second petitioner is the proprietrix of a sweet shop called Mayuri Sweets and Bakery situated in Gudur and the first petitioner is said to be the sales man in the said shop. The other details are not necessary but it will be sufficient to note the following aspects in the case with dates. 4. The sample of the kaju flower sweet was lifted on 25.7.2007 for analysis by the Food Inspector concerned. The report of Public Analyst, Hyderabad showing that the food article was adulterated with excess synthetic colour is dated 7.9.2007. The sanction for the prosecution from the competent authority was obtained on 3.12.2007 and the complaint was filed on 1.2.2008. 5. It would now be useful to note that the trial court took cognisance of the case on 19.7.2008 i.e. five months after the complaint was filed and it is not known what were the reasons for such a long delay in taking cognisance of the complaint. Thereafter notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused on 22.7.2008 and he received it on 24.7.2008 and consequently he filed application on 1.8.2008 for production of the second sample in order to get it analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. It is reported that second sample was received in the trial court on 12.9.2008. Thereafter the petitioners filed this quash petition. 6. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy pointed out that the food article in question is kaju flower sweet and the initial samples were lifted on 25.7.2007 and the second sample was produced in the court for being sent to Central Food Laboratory on 12.9.2008 i.e. more than one year after the sample was collected and therefore by reason of this long delay the second sample has become unfit for analysis and consequently both the petitioners have lost their valuable right under Section 13(2) of the Act which is very essential for continuation of the prosecution and since that right is denied to them, the prosecution cannot be allowed to stand and the case should be quashed. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute the above dates regarding the filing of complaint and its cognisance by the court. It is of-course true that information as to what preservatives were added and what is the life of the second sample are not before the court. It should further be noted at the same time that the article or sample in question is kaju flower sweet which is a perishable article and in the normal course addition of any preservative may not keep it fit for analysis after one year. In the present case the second sample was produced in the court for being sent to the Central Food Laboratory on 12.9.2008 and it can therefore be said that it cannot be in a fit condition for analysis. Even in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, nothing is mentioned about the preservative added and that by reason of that preservative the sample would be fit for analysis. It therefore follows that the petitioners have lost their right under Section 13(2) of the Act and the prosecution cannot be sustained for this technical reason. It would be surprising to note that after the complaint was filed on 1.2.2008 its cognisance was taken by the trial court on 19.7.2008 i.e. with a delay of more than five months and what are the reasons for the delay are not known. Even if any report is called for now regarding the above delay that may not be useful for the prosecution. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the case against both the petitioners is quashed. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore so that he may find out the reasons for occurrence of such delay in taking cognisance in this case and take appropriate action at his end to ensure that no prosecution under the Act fails on that count. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 11th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6711 OF 2008 DATE: 11.11.2011