ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the prosecution of the petitioner/A-5 in C.C.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda, Kurnool District for the offences under Sections 7 (i) and 2 (ia)(m) read with Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').

2. The case of the second respondent-complainant, the Food Inspector Division-III, Kurnool District, is that on 23.06.2004 at about 01.30 pm, the Food Inspector along with his attender in the presence of mediators inspected M/s. Raghavendra Shethi Kirana Shop, 10/51, Old peta, Pathikonda, Kurnool District and the vendor A-1 was present at the time of inspection and the Food Inspector found about 64 Nos. of Ruchi No.l Vanaspathi sealed in 500 ml. Packets and A-1 stated that they are meant for human consumption and kept for sale and suspecting the same to be adulterated, the Food Inspector purchased sample packets of Ruchi No.1 Vanaspathi after completing the procedural requirements under a panchanama and that on 24.06.2004 the samples were sent to the Public Analyst and that on 19.07.2004 the report of the analyst was received to the effect that the sample does not conform to the standards of Red Units and melting point and is therefore adulterated. Thereafter the complainant obtained permission for prosecution and filed the complaint on 02.05.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda, Kurnool District. The learned magistrate has taken the case on file and numbered as C.C.No.102 of 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the accused No.5, who is said to be the manufacturer of Ruchi-1 Vanaspathi, filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents are heard. Records are perused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sample was taken on 23.06.2004 and it was sent for analysis on 24.06.2004 and the report of the Public Analyst was received on 19.07.2004, but the complaint was filed 11/2 years later on 02.05.2006, thereby violated mandatory provisions contained in Section 11(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which mandates that the sample shall be produced before the court within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the report of the analyst and because of the inordinate delay of more than 11/2 years the accused is deprived of his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Act to send the sample for re-analysis to the Central Food Laboratory and thereby any amount of prejudice is caused to the accused which is detrimental to his defence.

5. It is not disputed that the sample of the alleged adulterant was collected from the premises of A-1 on 23.06.2004 and it was sent to Public Analyst on the next day i.e., 24.06.2004. The report of the Public Analyst was received on 19.07.2004 to the effect that the sample does not conform to the standards of Red Units and melting point; hence, the sample was adulterated. The permission for prosecution was afforded on 25.11.2005. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 02.05.2006. Section 11 (4) of the Act mandates that an article of food seized under sub-section 4 of Section 10 and any adulterant seized under sub- section 6 of Section 10 shall be produced before a magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. However, the seized sample, admittedly, was not produced before the court within seven days as required under sub-section 4 of Section 11, but was placed before the court on 02.05.2006 when the complaint was filed. Thus, there has been a clear violation of the mandatory stipulation contained under Section 11(4) of the Act regarding production of the sample before the court. It is also not d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document