Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
M/s. Hyderabad Beverages Private Limited, Hyderabd and others
Vs.
State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor
Criminal Petition Nos. 4325 of 2003, 3701 of 2004, 3856 of 2005 and 1007 of 2003
Decided on: 18-04-2006
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Mr. D. Krishna Murthy, Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner
Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) - Seeds Act - Criminal Petition - Common Questions arise for consideration in Criminal petition, as to whether delay, in furnishing a copy of the analyst report beyond the "Best Before" date or the expiry date of the shelf life of the product, could, by itself, be said to have resulted in the accused being denied the opportunity of sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food/Seeds Laboratory, and in their suffering prejudice thereby - Held, In these four criminal petitions the accused have not exercised their option, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act and Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act, and have not requested or made an application to the Court to send the sample for analysis to the Central Laboratory - Delay in furnishing a copy of the report of the public analyst cannot, therefore be said to have caused prejudice to them - It is only if the petitioners herein had made a request and if, on the sample being sent thereafter to the Central Laboratory, the Central Laboratory had certified that the sample had so decomposed as to render it unfit for analysis, can the petitioners herein be said to have suffered prejudice - In any event these are all matters for the learned Magistrate to examine on the basis of evidence, in the facts and circumstances of each case, and not for this Court to infer in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C - Petition dismissed. (Para 112)
Common Questions arise for consideration in Criminal petition Nos. 4325 of 2003, 3701 of 2004, 3856 of 2005 and 1007 of 2003, as to whether delay, in furnishing a copy of the analyst report beyond the "Best Before" date or the expiry date of the shelf life of the product, could, by itself, be said to have resulted in the accused being denied the opportunity of sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food/Seeds Laboratory, and in their suffering prejudice thereby. While Crl.P.No. 4325 of 2003 and Crl.P.No. 1007 of 2003 arise under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Crl.P.No. 3701 of 2004 and Crl.P.No. 3856 of 2005 arise under the Seeds Act.
Crl.P.No. 4325 of 2003:
2. This petition is filed to have the proceedings in C.C. No. 213 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, quashed.
3. Allegations in the complaint, are that the Food Inspector took samples of Lehar 7-Up, Lehar Corbonated Water and Pepsi Cola beverages from M/s. Sony Agencies, for analysis. A-1 is the proprietor of M/s. Sony Agencies who sold the sample of Lehar 7-Up, Lehar Corbonated Water and Pepsi Cola beverages. A-2 is M/s. Hyderabad Beverages Private Limited who supplied Lehar 7 -Up, Lehar Corbonated Water to A-1 under invoice 008 dated 19-4-2001 and 024 dated 30-4-2001. On an inspection conducted on 2-5-2001 five cases, each containing 24 bottles or 300 ml Lehar 7-Up manufactured on 30-4-2001 and 'best used within 6 months from the date of manufacture', were found. The Food Inspector purchased three sealed bottles of Lehar 7 Up and Lehar Corbonated Water and Pepsi Cola and sent the sample for analysis on 2-5-2001. Notice in Form VII was issued to A-2. The Public Analyst, in his report submitted in Form III on 06-06-2001, opined that the sample did not conform to the standards of total plate count and was therefore adulterated. With regards Lehar Corbonated Water the Public Analyst, in his report dated 7-2-2001, opined that the sample did not conform to the standards of total plate count, that e-coli and yeast was present and the food product was therefore adulterated. Sanction for prosecution was sought on 3-8-2001 and was accorded on 7-10-2001. The complaint was filed on 22-4-2003.
4. Petitioner would contend that, since the shell life of the product is six months from the date of manufacture on 30-4-2001 and the six months period expired on 30-10-2001, the complaint filed on 22-4-2003 was belated, and as they had been deprived of their right to have the sample sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory, before the shelf life of the product had expired, the complaint was liable to be quashed.
Crl.P.No.1007 of 2003:
5. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1095 of 2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Medchal. On 24-03-1999, the Food Inspector conducted a raid on M/s. Vijaya Minerals Manufacturing Plant and purchased three one litre sealed bottles of Kavery pure 'N' Safe Water bottles. He served a notice in Form-VI and on 25-03-1999 the sample bottle, along with Form VIII, was sent to the public analyst for analysis. The remaining two parts were deposited with the Director and State Local (Health) Authority, A.P., Hyderabad.
6. The Public Analyst, in his report, opined that the sample contained moulds and was therefore adulterated. After receipt of the public analyst's report, the Food Inspector obtained particulars and thereafter submitted a detailed report to the Director, Institute of Preventive medicine and the State Local (Health) Authority, A.P., Hyderabad. The Director accorded written consent for 'launching prosecution against the petitioners, vide letter dated 13-11-2001, and thereafter the complaint, date 03-12-2001, was filed on 27-12-2001. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 20-03-2002 and issued summons calling upon the petitioner to appear on 10-07-2002. On 20-07-2002, the accused were served copies of the charge sheet and the public analyst's report. However, notice
