The delay in supplying the report of the Public Analyst to the accused, which deprived the accused of the opportunity to get the second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, led to the quashing of the proceedings against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., has been preferred seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-CumSpecial Mobile Court, Anantapur District, in which the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1 on the allegation that he committed the offence under Ss. 7(i), 2(ia)(m) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 15/10/2005, the respondent-Food Inspector inspected the premises of the petitioner viz., M/s. Lakshmi Venkateswara Oil Rotary and having suspected the quality of the oil, the respondent had purchased 750 grams of Palmolein oil and sent the same to the State Laboratory for analysis. The Public Analyst gave his opinion vide report dtd. 14/11/2005 to the effect that the said sample does not conform to the standard of Butyro-refractometer reading at 40 C and Iodine value, and hence, the sample is adulterated as per Sec. 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1954'). The respondent having obtained permission from the Director and F(H)A, Hyderabad, for prosecution of the petitioner and another, filed a complaint on 15/10/2010

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise a solitary ground for quashing the complaint and submit that the Public Analyst report was supplied to the petitioner along with the notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act, 1954, dtd. 21/1/2012 and there is inordinate delay in supplying the report of the Public Analyst to the petitioner, and the said delay would infringe the right of the petitioner to get the other part of the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani and another reported in (2009) 15 SCC 64.

4. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the sample was obtained on 15/10/2005 and the Public Analyst gave opinion on 14/11/2005. Thereafter, sanction for prosecution was obtained on 29/10/2007 and notice under Sec. 13(2) was given to the petitioner on 21/1/2012. Thus, there is delay of more than six years in supplying a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the petitioner.

5. In Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that prosecution can be launched only on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, and a copy of the report could be supplied to the accused, and on receipt of the report, the accused could, if he so desired, make an application to the court to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the said case, the applicant was prevented from applying for analysis of the second sample and by the time the report was supplied, the second sample of curd had deteriorated and it was not capable of being analyzed.

6. In the case of Girishbhai, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the matter of MCD v. Ghisa Ram reported in AIR 1967 SC 970, wherein in similar circumstances, acquittal of the respondent therein on the ground that the respondent was deprived of the opportunity of exercising his right to get his sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory by the conduct of the prosecution, was justified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. In the case at hand, the above said legal position would squarely apply in favour of the petitioner because the report of the Public Analyst was supplied to the petitioner after more than six years. After such lapse of time, it is not possible for the petitioner to get the second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.

8. In view of the above and in the light of the judgments in Girishbhai and Ghisa Ram (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that ther