The judgment establishes the principle that failure to adhere to the procedural requirements and deprivation of valuable rights under the Act can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings as an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri, Anantapur District, filed the present criminal petition, under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against them in the said C.C.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that originally the case has been registered as C.C.No.376 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri, Anantapur District. However, subsequently, during pendency of this criminal petition, the case against the petitioners has been split up and numbered as C.C.No.27 of 2019, as has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners vide Memo dtd. 5/7/2023. Hence, the case number has been amended in the petition, vide separate docket order passed today.

3. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:

The subject C.C. has been registered on the complaint filed by the State through the Food Inspector, Anantapur, under Ss. 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954'). It was alleged in the complaint that on 17/4/2010, Food Inspector, Anantapur, visited the business premises of M/s. Nagarjuna Agencies, Rayachoti Road, Kadiri, and at that time, accused No.1 was transacting the business and he introduced himself as vendor-cum-proprietor of M/s. Nagarjuna Agencies. Having suspected adulteration of Kinley Club Soda, which was kept for sale for human consumption, the Food Inspector purchased 3x600 ml. sealed pet bottles of Kinley Club Soda, labelled as Kinley Club Soda, Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Private Limited, Sy.No.127 to 131, Kapuganneri Village, Sri Kalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, by paying its cost, in the presence of witness. It was alleged that on enquiry, the vendor did not disclose the source of supply. Having followed due procedure, one part of the sample of the food article was sent to Public Analyst and remaining two parts were kept in the safe custody of Assistant Food Controller and Local (Health) Authority. After analysis, the Public Analyst gave report dtd. 22/5/2010, opining that the sample does not conform to the standard of Total Plate Count and it is, therefore, adulterated. On 26/11/2010, the Food Inspector sent detailed report of complete case file to the State Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, for necessary orders. After examination, the State Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, accorded written consent order vide Rc.No.7188/F4/2010 dtd. 14/3/2011 to launch prosecution against the accused. Accordingly, charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 3, Proprietor of M/s. Nagarjuna Agencies, Quality Assurance Executive and Nominee of M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Limited and M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Limited respectively, for the offences under Sec. 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of the Act of 1954, punishable under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 1954. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/A2 and A3 filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings against them in the subject C.C.

4. Mr. S. Leo Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that even as per the averments in the complaint, source of supply of the stock was not furnished by the vendor. He further submits that the shelf life of the beverage had expired by 12/5/2010 itself, whereas the Public Analyst gave report on 22/5/2010, and since the shelf life had expired, the petitioners have lost their right to get the sample of article analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. He further submits that it is mandatory that a copy of the report of Public Analyst shall be forwarded to the persons concerned, within a period of ten days after the institution of prosecution, but in the present case, the complaint was filed on 11/7/2011, whereas the copy of the report