1. Petitioner is the first accused in a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Kochi, for offences punishable under Sections 2 (ia)(b), 7 (i) (v) read with Section 16 (1)(a)(ii) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for short the ‘Act’, read with item number A-18-06-11 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules, for short the Rules Cognizance taken of the offences the case awaits further steps for trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam. Petitioner has filed the above petition to quash the criminal proceedings against him invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short ‘the Code’}, contending that the proceedings are an abuse of process of the court.

2. The gist of the accusation against the accused can be summed up thus: The Food Inspector, hereinafter referred to as complainant, visited, on 03.07.2007, the business premises of M/s Trinetra Super Retail Limited (Fab Mall), Edapally, Cochin-24, a private limited company engaged in retail outlet of provisions and other goods. Disclosing his identity and complying with the Rules complainant purchased three packets of 500gms of Urd Dal Whole exhibited for sale in that Fab Mall. Petitioner is the Manager, and second accused licensee of that Fab Mall. Petitioner was present when sale of the above food item was effected by the complainant. Sampling of that food item was carried out in the presence of petitioner and also witnesses in accordance with the Act and Rules and a mahazar was prepared at the spot evidencing the steps taken by the complainant over the purchases and sampling done. One among the samples taken and sealed., with specimen impression of the seal used for sampling in a separate cover, was sent over to the public Analyst and the remaining food samples, with specimen impression of the seal, in separate covers was sent over to the Local (Health) Authority and District Food Inspector. Report received from the Public Analyst revealed that the sample was coated with talc, which is prohibited, and thus adulterated. Local authority forwarded Form III report to the complainant for launching prosecution complainant thereupon sent separate pre-registered letters to the first and second accused seeking license and nomination details of M/s Trinetra Super Retail Limited (Fabmall). No reply was furnished to such letters. After ascertaining that no P.F.A. nomination has been made by the above Private Limited Company, and also collecting the details of the P.F.A. Licensee and Directors of the Company, the above complaint was filed. The first accused is the Store Manager, second accused the licensee and 3rd to 7th accused are the Directors of M/s Trinetra Super Retail Limited (fabMall), and all of them are responsible for day today affairs of the business and, thus, culpable for the offences imputed under the Act and Rules, is the case of the complainant.

3. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri, M.K. Damodaran, whom appeared for the petitioner, assailed the prosecution proceedings arising from Annexure A complaint on the following challenges. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that there was inordinate delay in carrying out the analysis over the sample and launching the prosecution against the accused persons by filling the complaint before the magistrate. The food item – Urd Dal whole over which prosecution is launched was kept packed. Details of packing as revealed from the noting made in Mahazar showed that it was packed on 22.06.2007 with a further declaration that its ‘best before date’ is 21.08.2007. For all statutory purpose and for use, according to the counsel, the ‘best before date’ is applicable. Though sample was collected on 31.07.2007 complaint was filled after lapse of six months and that is long after the expiry of the best before period noted in the packet. When that be the case, the inordinate delay in filing the complaint and prosecu